Summarize repository structure and architecture configuration to prepare for an architecture review. Provides a clear overview of code organization for informed plan assessments.
Summarize architecture configuration and repository structure for an architecture review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the context of summarizing both configuration and repository structure, which is useful but not a significant behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations imply. Given the strong annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and purpose. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, contains no filler words, and every part earns its place. This is an example of efficient, high-quality writing.
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 that there are no parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is largely complete. It clearly indicates the tool produces a summary of architecture configuration and repository structure, which tells the agent what to expect. While it could specify the format of the summary, this is a minor gap for a zero-parameter summarization tool.
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 the schema is empty. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. There is no additional parameter information required, and the description adequately communicates the tool's purpose without referencing parameters.
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 the action 'Summarize' and the specific resources 'architecture configuration and repository structure' with a clear purpose 'for an architecture review'. This distinguishes it from siblings like review_plan (which reviews a plan) and review_diff (which reviews a diff), making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
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 description provides clear context by stating it is for an architecture review, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools such as understand_repo or find_existing_patterns, which might also be relevant in similar contexts. This falls short of a 5 but is still clear enough for typical usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.