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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search operation but does not state whether it is non-destructive, what code scope is searched, whether it has side effects, or what the result format looks like.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately compact, though it omits details that are needed elsewhere; still, for what it does say, the structure is efficient and scannable.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, this one-liner is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The agent knows the general purpose but not how to construct a valid query or interpret results, leaving a significant gap in actionable context.

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 0% and the description makes no mention of either parameter. The agent cannot infer what 'query' should contain (a term? regex? pattern name?) or what 'limit' controls, despite the schema only providing a type and numeric bounds.

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 states a clear verb ('Search'), a resource ('source code'), and a specific goal ('existing implementations before adding an abstraction'). It distinguishes itself from the review/understand sibling tools by emphasizing pre-abstraction discovery, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling it is not.

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 'before adding an abstraction' provides a clear situational context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools like aplomo_understand_repo, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Summarize' strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is useful. However, the description does not clarify what 'architecture configuration' encompasses, whether it scans the current repository, or whether any side effects or prerequisites exist.

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 with the action verb front-loaded. It earns its place without fluff, though it is somewhat generic and leaves out useful context that could make it more informative.

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 parameterless tool, the description is nearly self-contained, and there is no output schema to account for. However, the lack of distinction from aplomo_understand_repo and the absence of any information about what the summary will contain mean an agent could hesitate before selecting this tool confidently.

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 zero parameters, so there is no schema detail an agent could miss. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented inputs.

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 states a specific action, 'Summarize', and a clear resource: 'architecture configuration and repository structure'. It also ties the tool to the 'architecture review' context. However, it does not differentiate it from the sibling tool aplomo_understand_repo, which could plausibly perform a similar summarization task.

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 'for an architecture review' implies when this tool is relevant, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like aplomo_review_plan or aplomo_review_diff. There are no exclusions or alternative conditions provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (reviews the diff) but omits key details: what the output looks like, whether it is read-only, any side effects, or how results are presented. This is a significant gap for a review tool.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and target. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is still incomplete. It does not specify what the agent should expect as a result (e.g., a report, a list of issues, a pass/fail status), nor does it mention prerequisites like a staged or committed diff. This leaves the agent uncertain about how to use the tool's output.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 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 states a specific verb 'review' and resource 'current git diff' with specific focus areas (risky size, secrets, missing test changes). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like aplomo_review_plan or aplomo_review_architecture, which focus on different artifacts.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. There is no mention of workflow context, such as 'run before committing' or 'use instead of aplomo_review_plan for diff analysis'. The description implies a use case but does not explicitly address selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool 'checks' or evaluates, but does not describe whether it is read-only, what the output looks like, or what happens after the check. The listed criteria are useful but do not fully reveal the tool's behavior.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The key action and criteria are front-loaded, making it easy to parse and act on quickly.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it does not explain what the tool returns, how the plan should be provided, or when to choose this tool over its siblings. This leaves an agent with meaningful ambiguity about invocation and interpretation of results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by identifying the 'plan' parameter as an implementation plan and by hinting at what aspects are evaluated. However, it does not specify the expected string format, such as whether it should be a full plan document, a file path, or a summary.

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 names a specific verb ('check') and a concrete resource ('implementation plan'), and lists four distinct evaluation criteria: patterns, scope, compatibility, and validation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like review_architecture or review_diff.

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?

While the description makes it clear the tool is for implementation plans, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as aplomo_review_architecture or aplomo_find_existing_patterns. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative routing hints.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention side effects, describe the scanning scope, or indicate what kind of output is returned. The verbs imply non-destructive behavior, but this is not made explicit.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning, and the primary action is stated clearly at the beginning.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description conveys the broad purpose sufficiently, but it lacks usage context, expected output shape, and any caveats. Without annotations or an output schema, this minimal description leaves the agent to guess practical details about invocation and results.

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 accepts zero parameters, and the schema is fully covered by that fact (100% coverage). There is no parameter meaning to add, so the baseline of 4 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?

The description uses specific verbs ('Detect', 'summarize') and concrete resources (technologies, modules, symbols), making the tool's objective clear. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling review/plan/diff tools by focusing on repository-level comprehension rather than evaluation or modification.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as aplomo_review_architecture or aplomo_find_existing_patterns. The agent must infer appropriate usage solely from the tool name and generic description.

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