Open Kioku Summarize Architecture

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'This is read-only' which is consistent but does not introduce new behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction, and the safety profile is clear from 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?

Three sentences, all contributing value. The second sentence partially repeats the first, but the inclusion of user guidance and read-only note keeps it efficient. Could be slightly more concise by merging the first two sentences.

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, rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the existence of an output schema (which documents return values), the description covers the essential purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral traits. It does not mention prerequisites, but none are needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter details because 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 it returns a structured summary of codebase architecture, including layer constraints and violation checks. It distinguishes itself from siblings like explain_flow (narrative) and architecture_policy_explain (file-level evidence) by name and purpose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use for a structured architecture overview') and provides alternative tools for different needs ('Prefer explain_flow for a narrative and architecture_policy_explain for file-level evidence'). This gives clear guidance on when to select this tool over siblings.

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