run_architecture_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the scan's purpose and supported languages, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it modifies anything, or any performance/error behavior. This is a significant gap for a scan tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, using two sentences to cover purpose and supported languages without redundant or promotional language. Every word earns its place, making it highly scannable.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must alone provide enough context for correct usage. It explains what the tool does but omits crucial details such as output format, how to interpret results, and the semantics of the 'pattern' parameter. This makes the description incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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 only 50%: 'projectRoot' is described, but 'pattern' has no description. The tool description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter; it does not explain what patterns like 'layered' or 'hexagonal' mean or how they affect the scan. It adds no value beyond the existing schema.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('scans'), a target resource ('workspace source files'), and concrete outcomes ('layer boundary violations, circular dependencies, and improper coupling'). It also lists supported languages, which distinguishes it from sibling security-focused scan tools like run_vulnerability_scan or run_security_scan.

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 when to use the tool (whenever architectural quality checks are needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like run_mcp_design_scan. It gives clear context but lacks exclusionary or alternative usage instructions.

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