tentra

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions the tool exports files but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies the architecture, what permissions are needed, or what the output looks like (e.g., file paths, success indicators). For a tool that generates files, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose and lists formats, the second provides usage note for output_dir. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids unnecessary details, though the long format list could be slightly condensed.

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 (exporting to multiple formats, potentially generating files) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the export produces (e.g., file contents, success response), error conditions, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (id, format, output_dir) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that output_dir is 'required for code formats' and listing the format options, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 exports an architecture into various formats (runnable code, docker-compose, Mermaid diagram, or ADR docs), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_architecture' (retrieval) and 'create_architecture' (creation), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'sync_architecture' or 'update_architecture' which might have overlapping export-like functionality.

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 usage by listing available formats and noting that 'output_dir' is required for code formats, providing some contextual guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_architecture' for viewing or 'sync_architecture' for updating, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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