MMI Architecture Analyzer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like what format the analysis output takes, whether it's a read-only analysis or makes changes, error handling, performance characteristics, or what happens with invalid project paths.

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 efficiently structured in two clear sentences that directly state the tool's purpose. There's no wasted text, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema that performs architectural analysis, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the analysis output looks like, what constitutes a 'violation', how results are presented, or what happens with edge cases. The description needs to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'compact' versus 'detailed' mode means in practical terms or providing examples of valid project paths.

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 specific action ('analyzes Clean Architecture layering violations'), target resource ('C# project'), and scope ('Domain/Application/Infrastructure layers'). It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_abstraction or analyze_cycles by focusing specifically on layering violations and dependency rules.

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 like analyze_encapsulation or visualize_architecture. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when other tools might be more appropriate for different architectural analysis needs.

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