search_architecture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only lists what the tool finds and what it returns; it does not state that the operation is read-only, does not mention any rate limits, permissions, side effects, or error behavior. For a search tool, the read-only nature is implied but not disclosed.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by a scannable bullet list of findings, then Args and Returns sections. It is appropriately sized. The 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, but it adds a one-line summary of what to expect.

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 complexity (2 params, output schema present, no annotations), the description covers purpose, findings, and parameter meanings adequately. However, it does not help the agent choose between this and the many sibling search tools (search_codebase, search_with_dependencies, search_for_feature, etc.), which is a significant gap for correct tool selection.

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: 'component' is explained with examples ('auth', 'database', 'api'), and 'n_results' is described with its default (10). Both parameters are given meaning beyond their bare titles, though no format constraints or edge cases are mentioned.

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+resource: 'Specialized search for understanding architecture' and enumerates the specific things it finds (core modules, dependencies, config, patterns). It does not name or distinguish itself from sibling search tools like search_codebase or search_with_dependencies, so an agent still has to infer differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for understanding architecture' and the list of findings, giving a context cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not conditions, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling search tools. The agent must infer that this is the architecture-focused search.

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