architecture_policy_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output (counts and bounded unknown samples) but does not mention side effects, idempotency, or permissions. It is not misleading but lacks explicit safety traits.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and then details the output. No extraneous words; every part adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (edge counts with samples). However, it does not define 'bounded unknown samples' or the format, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no parameters and no output schema.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details; baseline is 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 the tool's action (evaluate dependency rules), the resource (repository-owned architecture policy), and the data sources (import, reference, call graph edges). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'architecture_violations' by specifying the input is policy rules and output is edge counts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'architecture_violations' or 'detect_architecture'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when it should not be used.

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