MMI Architecture Analyzer

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only analysis or has side effects, what permissions are required, what the output format looks like, or any performance characteristics. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the overall function, specifying what it detects, and clarifying the goal. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, the second sentence could be slightly more streamlined.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (analyzing code architecture), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis output contains, how violations are reported, or what follow-up actions might be needed. For a tool that presumably returns analysis results, this creates uncertainty about how to interpret and use the tool's findings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain how 'projectPath' relates to the abstraction analysis or provide context for 'mode' selection. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added by the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing separation of abstraction levels by detecting mixing of business logic with technical details and identifying violations. It uses specific verbs ('analyzes', 'detects', 'identifies') and specifies the resource (abstraction levels in code). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like analyze_layering or analyze_encapsulation, which may have related but distinct purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, specify contexts where this analysis is appropriate, or indicate prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.