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 running analysis and providing a score, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like execution time, resource requirements, error handling, or output format details. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: first sentence defines the analysis scope, second sentence specifies the output. No redundant information or fluff.

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 has 2 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details about the analysis process, output format, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool performing complex architectural analysis, more context about results and limitations would be helpful.

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 fully documents both parameters (projectPath and mode). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3. It doesn't explain how parameters affect the analysis process or results.

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: 'Complete MMI (Modularity Maturity Index) analysis' with specific dimensions (Layering, Encapsulation, Abstraction Levels) and mentions providing an overall architecture quality score. It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_abstraction, analyze_encapsulation, and analyze_layering by indicating it runs all three dimensions together, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other analysis tools like analyze_cycles.

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 for comprehensive MMI analysis across three dimensions, suggesting it's for overall architecture assessment rather than individual dimension analysis. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_abstraction (for single dimension) or visualize_architecture (for visualization), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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