arch_validate

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

Discloses return format (violations list and statistics), scoping behavior, and strict mode effect. Without annotations, more context on whether the tool is read-only, authorization needs, or performance implications would be beneficial. The description does not cover these aspects.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, scoping behavior, and strict mode effect. No redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, return type, and parameter usage. Missing details about rule definitions and error handling, but overall sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema descriptions are minimal ('Files to validate', 'Strict validation mode'). The description adds value by explaining that omitting files validates the full project and that strict=true elevates warnings to errors, providing practical meaning beyond the schema.

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 it checks code files against architecture layer rules and returns a violations list and statistics. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like arch_suggest or contract_validate, the verb 'validate' and focus on rules conveys a distinct purpose.

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?

Provides concrete usage patterns: call with no files for full project validation or with a list of file paths to scope. Also explains the strict parameter effect. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear.

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