vibe_architect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'transform' and 'plan with ADR decisions' but does not disclose any side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or whether it modifies state. The behavioral implications are unclear.

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 redundant words. It is concise and to the point. However, it could be restructured to include more key details without losing conciseness.

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 has 5 parameters (2 required), no parameter descriptions in schema, and no annotations, a single-sentence description is insufficient. The output schema exists but doesn't relieve the description of explaining input semantics. The current description leaves agents guessing about how to correctly invoke the 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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of the five parameters (ctx, intent, constraints, context, target_stack). Only 'intent' is vaguely referenced. The description fails to add meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 tool transforms natural language intent into a detailed architecture plan with ADR decisions. The verb 'transform' and the resource 'architecture plan' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vibe_design or vibe_code, which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Given the list of sibling tools, explicit usage guidelines would be valuable.

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