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 indicates this is a read operation ('Retrieve', 'read the current state'), which is helpful, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what format the architecture data returns in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read operation with 1 parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate basic information about purpose and usage context. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context about what the retrieval returns and any constraints. The description is minimally complete but could be more helpful.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema ('The architecture ID to retrieve'). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a specific architecture by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_architectures' by specifying retrieval of a single item, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all relevant alternatives like 'export_architecture' or 'sync_architecture'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to read the current state before making updates'), which implicitly suggests it's for preparatory reads before mutations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for different scenarios.

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