architect_style_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it discloses that incomplete rules remain 'unknown' rather than failing, and that the tool carries no approval authority — both material to interpreting results.

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 compact sentences with the core scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is terse to the point of being cryptic in places, but every clause carries information.

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 read-only check tool with no output schema, the description should convey what the check returns (violations, pass/fail, unknown markers). It gestures at this with 'incomplete rules stay unknown' but leaves the result shape and the two undocumented identifiers largely unexplained.

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 coverage is only 33%, with just 'workspace' documented, so the description must carry artifact_id and change_id. It alludes to 'one exact registered revision' but never explains what artifact_id identifies, what change_id adds, or that change_id is optional.

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?

States a specific verb (Check) and resource (declared STE-inspired rule subset) scoped to a single registered revision. It distinguishes itself from a general sdd_check by emphasizing 'STE-inspired subset' and disclaims approval authority, though it never names the sibling it should be chosen over.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against siblings like architect_sdd_check, architect_sdd_prepare_check, or architect_language_review, all of which overlap in the check/review space. Only weak implied constraints ('one exact registered revision') hint at prerequisites.

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