architecture_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing safety. The verb 'Summarize' and the phrase 'local project' imply read-only behavior, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify files or perform network calls. It does clarify what information is reported, which provides some behavioral context.

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 compact and efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, a one-line output enumeration, and an Args section. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, key deliverables, and the only parameter. It could add prerequisites (e.g., path must exist) or mention that it reads only local files, but the description is largely adequate for this simple tool.

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 provides only a 'path' string with no description (coverage 0%). The description compensates fully by explaining that 'path' is an 'absolute path to the local project directory', adding crucial semantics beyond the structured schema.

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 action ('Summarize the architecture') and the target ('a local project'), and lists specific outputs (file language breakdown, top-level structure, likely entry points). This distinguishes it from siblings like project_statistics or dependency_summary.

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 when to use the tool (when an architecture overview of the local project is needed) but provides no explicit comparison to siblings such as repository_summary or explain_repository, nor any 'when not to use' guidance.

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