validate_architecture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It says 'scan' which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, whether it can modify files, what permissions are needed, or how results are returned. This leaves critical behavioral ambiguity.

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, focused sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's core function without redundant language or unnecessary details.

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 complexity of architectural validation, the description is under-specified. It does not mention the output format, whether it returns a pass/fail or detailed violations, how guidelines are defined, or any side effects. Although an output schema exists, the description itself provides no additional context to help the agent anticipate behavior.

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 input schema defines a single 'path' parameter with a default, but the description never mentions it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain what the path means or how it relates to 'the codebase', leaving the agent to infer the parameter's role.

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 action ('Scan the codebase') and the specific scope ('validate imports/technologies against the project's architectural guidelines and forbidden tools'). This distinguishes it from sibling validation tools like verify_work and verify_requirements, which target different aspects (work outcomes and requirements).

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 implies a clear use case: checking whether code adheres to architectural standards and forbidden-tool policies. It provides context for when to invoke it, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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