tentra

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: scanning codebase, diffing against saved diagram, and reporting changes with accuracy score. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, whether it modifies data, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero waste: first states the core purpose, second explains the process, third specifies the output. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value, and the description is appropriately front-loaded with the main function.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and process clarity but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of architecture comparison, more context on what 'accuracy score' means or how results are structured would improve completeness, though the current description is minimally viable.

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 both parameters ('architectureId' and 'codebasePath'). The description adds context about what these parameters are used for (comparing saved architecture against codebase), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verbs ('compare', 'scans', 'diffs', 'reports') and resources ('saved architecture', 'current codebase', 'services/connections'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'diff_snapshots' (which might compare snapshots rather than architecture vs codebase) and 'analyze_codebase' (which likely analyzes without comparison).

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 when needing to detect drift between a saved architecture and current code, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'diff_snapshots' or 'lint_architecture'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about optimal use cases.

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