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 implies a read-only operation ('shows'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time vs. cached data, or handles errors. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning without waste, making it appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage, behavior, or output format, which could be helpful for an agent to understand how to interpret the results (e.g., what 'scores and trends' entail).

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't introduce confusion or gaps.

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 verb 'shows' and the resource 'status of all monitored projects', specifying what data is included ('current scores and trends'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'visualize_architecture' or 'analyze_*' tools, which might also show project-related information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing monitoring to be active (implied by 'monitored projects'), nor does it compare to siblings such as 'start_monitoring' or 'stop_monitoring' for context on setup/teardown.

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