architecture_advice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool provides 'recommendations', implying a read-only or advisory operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it's stateless, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the response format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, warranting a score of 2.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get architecture and design pattern recommendations from a senior AI.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no redundant information, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function. This earns a perfect score of 5 for conciseness and structure.

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 the tool's complexity (a single-parameter advisory tool), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or return values. This is adequate for a simple tool but has clear gaps, resulting in a score of 3 as the minimum viable description.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'problem' documented as 'Architecture challenge description'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra value from the description.

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 purpose: 'Get architecture and design pattern recommendations from a senior AI.' It specifies the action ('Get recommendations') and the resource type ('architecture and design pattern'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ask_senior' or 'code_review', which might also provide advice. This earns a 4 for clear purpose without sibling differentiation.

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 like 'ask_senior' or 'code_review'. It lacks context about specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone. This results in a score of 2 for no explicit usage guidelines.

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