get_architecture_summary

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does credibly describe the shape of the response (overview vs per-community focus, appended member lists and hub nodes), but says nothing about prerequisites (e.g. the graph must already be loaded/reloaded), cost/latency of an aggregation over the whole repo, or default limits behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core output contract front-loaded and the mode-switching flags grouped in the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema tool it does the important work of describing what comes back, and the schema fully covers the knobs. What is missing is operational framing: no note that the repository graph must be loaded, and no hint about the relative cost of the repo-wide overview versus a focused community query.

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 every one of the 10 parameters is already documented. The description echoes the semantics of community_id, include_community_members and include_god_nodes, but adds no detail the schema lacks (defaults, ranges, and filtering modes on node_types/path_prefix/generated_code_mode are all schema-side). Baseline 3 applies.

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?

A concrete verb (return) plus resource (repository-level architecture summary) and an explicit enumeration of what the payload contains: communities, cross-community connectors, architectural hotspots. It does not distinguish itself from nearby read tools such as query_graph or get_graph_info, which is the only thing keeping it off a 5.

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 second sentence gives conditional guidance for three flags ('Set community_id to focus on one community instead of the overview', include_community_members/god_nodes append to the result), so invocation modes are implied. There is no statement of when to choose this tool over an alternative query path, nor any when-not guidance.

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