MMI Architecture Analyzer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that cycles 'violate good architecture principles' and are 'critical' for Domain layer, adding some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose key traits: whether this is a read-only analysis, what the output format is, if it has side effects, performance implications, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise with three sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, the second elaborates on detection, and the third adds critical context. There's no wasted text, and each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal clarity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and some context but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with other tools. For a static analysis tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent on what to expect from the tool's behavior.

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 fully documents both parameters (projectPath and mode). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or usage tips. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Analyzes circular dependencies (cycles) in the codebase' with specific verb ('analyzes') and resource ('circular dependencies in the codebase'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on cycles rather than abstraction, encapsulation, layering, etc., though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The mention of Domain layer adds specificity but doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings.

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 implies usage context with 'Critical when Domain layer is involved,' suggesting when this tool is particularly important. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like analyze_layering or other analysis tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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