tentra

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates artifacts and returns a URL, which is helpful, but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., whether this persists data, requires authentication, or has rate limits). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context would be beneficial, but the description does add some value beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear usage rules and a post-call instruction. All four sentences earn their place by providing essential guidance without redundancy. It's efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does well by clearly stating the purpose, usage context, and expected output (a URL). However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like persistence or authentication needs, which would make it more complete for a creation tool. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at the return format, which it partially does with 'returned URL.'

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationships between parameters or providing usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose with specific verb ('Create') and resource ('system architecture artifact'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it's for creation rather than retrieval (like get_architecture) or analysis (like analyze_codebase). The phrase 'design, plan, or describe any system, feature, or integration' further clarifies the scope.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Call this tool whenever the user asks to design, plan, or describe any system, feature, or integration' and 'NEVER respond with plain text architecture descriptions — always call this tool instead.' It also includes a post-call instruction to 'share the returned URL with the user,' giving clear when-to-use and what-to-do-next guidance.

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