Get an Agentic Reference Architecture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context about the response content (request flow, reference scenario, KPIs, cost & scaling, patterns/knowledge) and imposes a requirement that a slug be obtained via search/list first. It does not contradict annotations.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states purpose and content, the second provides the usage prerequisite. No filler, no redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded. This is exemplary conciseness for a tool definition.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown but signaled) and strong annotations covering semantics. The description enumerates the major content categories returned and ties into the knowledge/pattern structure, making it clear what the user gets. Nothing critical is omitted for a simple get-by-slug operation.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the 'slug' parameter is derived from search or list_architectures, giving provenance and usage context beyond the schema's simple type definition. This raises the score to 4.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get one reference architecture by slug', and enumerates the payload components (request flow, KPIs, cost & scaling, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_architectures' (list vs get) and 'get_overview' (different resource focus). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this once search or list_architectures has given you a slug.' This is a clear precondition and directs the user to alternative discovery tools first. It does not, however, explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with other 'get_*' tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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