validate_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 discloses the rule families being checked but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, whether it mutates or generates artifacts, what it returns, or how failures are reported.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the rule identifiers parenthetically appended. Zero waste.

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?

This is a validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what a result looks like (pass/fail, violation list, exit behavior). It omits that entirely, and also doesn't clarify the validation scope (whole repo vs. changed files).

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 100% and the single repository parameter is documented in the schema with an example value. The description adds no syntax, scope, or defaulting detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ("Validate") and a specific resource (code against NSTOK architectural rules), and even names the rule families checked (UI-001, DB-001, ARCH-001, DEP-001). It does not differentiate itself from adjacent checking siblings such as run_lint or run_tests, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to invoke this versus run_lint, run_tests, or run_build, and no prerequisites or timing guidance. The agent must infer that this is a post-change compliance check.

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