aplomo_review_architecture

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.