explain_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read-only operation ('summarize') with no side effects, but does not disclose output format, limits, or dependencies. This is adequate for a simple tool but not fully transparent.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. The key action and scope are front-loaded ('Summarize the high-level architecture flows and directory boundaries').

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 simple read-only behavior, the description is largely complete. However, it could briefly mention the nature of the output (e.g., text summary) to improve completeness.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline of 4 applies as the schema coverage is effectively 100% (no parameters to document).

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 uses a specific verb ('summarize') and clearly identifies the resource ('high-level architecture flows and directory boundaries'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'summarize_architecture' (broader) and 'architecture_boundaries' (focused on boundaries only).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'summarize_architecture' or 'architecture_boundaries'. The description does not include any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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