nexus_detect_architecture_smells

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

Beyond the annotations' read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive safety profile, the description usefully discloses that detection is rule-based rather than, for example, AI-driven or based on arbitrary exploration. It does not clarify the scan scope, data sources, external accesses implied by openWorldHint, or limitations of the rules.

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 single compact sentence front-loads the action and concrete finding types, then adds a useful methodological qualifier. There is no redundant or unnecessary wording.

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?

The annotations and output schema reduce the need to describe safety or return values, and the named checks provide a viable minimum for selection. However, the description omits what environment or resource set is scanned and how narrowly the rule-based results should be interpreted, which are meaningful gaps for a zero-argument scan.

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?

There are no parameters to explain, so the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. The description is consistent with a fixed set of checks and does not introduce any undocumented input behavior.

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 uses a specific verb and enumerates the findings produced: unused resources, offline repositories, and configuration inconsistencies. The rule-based qualifier further clarifies the approach, but there is no explicit differentiation from the architecture, audit, or comparison siblings.

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: choose this tool when looking for the three named categories of architecture smells through rule-based checks. It does not state when these checks are appropriate, what they do not cover, or when to prefer nexus_audit_repository_content or nexus_compare_live_state_with_declared_state.

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