analyze_architecture

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of safety and side-effect disclosure. It describes what the tool provides (overview, metrics, recommendations) and the lookup priority, but never states whether it is read-only, its return format, or any limitations. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-organized with clear sections and bullet points. It is slightly repetitive with 'RECOMMENDED' appearing both at the beginning and end, but every section earns its place and the content is front-loaded.

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 description is fairly complete for a read-oriented analysis tool with no output schema. It explains what it provides and when to use it, but does not describe the exact response format or error behavior, which would be useful given the absence of an 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?

The schema already has 100% coverage with good descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that any combination of identifiers works and specifying the priority order (project_id > workspace_path > project_name), which helps disambiguate behavior.

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 analyzes and understands project architecture, with a specific verb and resource. It lists concrete outputs (dependency analysis, complexity metrics), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_architecture_recommendation or validate_code_structure.

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?

A dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section provides five clear scenarios, such as onboarding or before significant changes. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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