Analyze a workspace's architecture to detect project types, .NET solutions, layers, and key entry points, gaining high-level insight without reading raw files.
High-level workspace and architecture analysis. Detects project types, .NET solutions, architecture layers, and key entry points without dumping raw files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxDepth | No | Maximum directory tree depth to inspect (default 2) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says the tool does not dump raw files and instead 'detects' high-level structures, which conveys that it is a read-only, summarizing analysis. It could add more about output shape or limits, but the non-dumping behavior and detection focus are genuinely transparent.
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 tightly written two-sentence definition with no filler. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the high-level purpose and the second lists concrete detections while adding the important boundary of not dumping raw files.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what kind of results to expect and what content is deliberately excluded. It does not need to document return values in detail, though slightly more context about maximum depth or output granularity would make it fully self-sufficient.
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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter maxDepth with a clear description including its default. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how depth affects the analysis, but since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 that the tool performs high-level workspace and architecture analysis and specifies concrete outputs: project types, .NET solutions, architecture layers, and key entry points. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that look up symbols, references, or change impact rather than giving a workspace-level overview.
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 phrase 'High-level workspace and architecture analysis' implies this tool is for an architectural overview rather than deep code investigation, and 'without dumping raw files' suggests when it should not be used. However, there is no explicit guidance about choosing this over sibling tools like wincode_diagnose_project or wincode_plan_refactoring, so the routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.