get_architecture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it explains the formatted tree view output, how filter and highlight work, and the exact showAll behavior with ★ markers. It doesn't explicitly state non-destructiveness, but 'explore' implies it.

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 three sentences long, each earning its place: purpose, use case, and parameter behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids any fluff or repetition of schema content.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description fully explains what the tool returns (tree view, ★ markers) and how to control output via parameters. It covers all 4 parameters and their relationships, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining how showAll interacts with highlight, and how filter and highlight differ (path vs content), adding meaningful contextual meaning beyond the field-level descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Explore a registered project's directory structure as a formatted tree view.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search or scan_project, and states its purpose in practical terms (understand layout, find files, navigate codebase).

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 says 'Use this to understand the project layout, find relevant files, or navigate the codebase,' giving clear contexts for usage. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use-case framing is strong enough for most situations.

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