tentra

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'validates' and lists quality issues checked, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only vs. destructive, permission requirements, rate limits, or output format. The description is functional but lacks operational context needed for safe invocation.

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 two sentences: first states the core purpose, second lists specific checks. It's front-loaded with the main action and efficiently enumerates examples without unnecessary elaboration. However, the second sentence could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points in the original formatting).

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 validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., report format, error codes), success/failure conditions, or side effects. Given the complexity implied by checking multiple quality issues, more contextual information is needed for reliable use.

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% with one parameter 'id' documented as 'The architecture ID to lint'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 'validate' and resource 'existing architecture' with a specific purpose 'for quality issues', and lists concrete checks like orphan nodes, duplicate connections, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_quality_hotspots' or 'analyze_codebase' which might have overlapping 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_quality_hotspots' or 'analyze_codebase'. It mentions what the tool checks but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., architecture must exist) or contextual triggers for usage.

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