architecture_violations

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states it reports violations without explaining how (e.g., static analysis, runtime), whether it modifies state, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 concise at one sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be more structured to front-load key details. It's efficient but slightly under-specified.

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 parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of reporting violations, the description is minimal. It lacks details on what constitutes a violation, the report format, or invocation context, making it adequate but incomplete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. By the calibration rule, baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable as none exist.

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 that the tool reports import or boundary violations, specifying the verb 'report' and the resource 'import or boundary violations'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'detect_architecture' or 'architecture_boundaries', though not explicitly.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. It lacks exclusions or explicit usage scenarios.

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