Find Layer Violations

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

Annotations already declare this is read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'returns every' completeness claim, but says nothing about scope, result size, ordering, or cost of a whole-architecture scan. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first defines the violation type with concrete examples, the second states what is returned. Zero filler and the core concept is front-loaded.

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 read-only, single-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to know what it does and what comes back. It stops short of noting result format or the multi-project requirement nuance, but the annotations and schema cover most of the rest.

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 coverage is 100% and only one optional parameter exists, so the schema already documents 'project' fully (including the list_projects hint). The description adds no parameter detail, but with coverage this high and a single parameter, the baseline is satisfied and no gap remains.

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+resource ('Find places where the architecture is broken') and defines the target precisely — backward or skip-layer dependencies violating clean architecture. Sibling tools like find_ownership_violations and find_exposure_leaks are different violation classes, and the description makes clear this one is specifically about layer dependency direction.

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 examples ('a database repository calling a route handler, a utility importing a component') establish exactly when this tool applies. However, there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or which sibling to reach for instead (e.g., find_ownership_violations), leaving the boundary to inference.

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