architecture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output follows the 'ce.arch-report schema' and enumerates report contents, and 'Advisory' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. However it does not state permissions, cost, or whether the operation is purely a read, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

It is a single dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the resource ('The architecture of the tree') and cleanly partitioned by a colon and parallel list items. Nearly every clause names a distinct report section, so little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content, and it does list the report sections. But for a tool with no annotations it omits usage routing and explicit read-only/permission behavior, leaving it adequate rather than complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both `path` and `impact`. The description adds only a small amount of meaning by framing `impact` as 'the files a change to `impact` reaches', which clarifies its effect in the report but does not add syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (the tree's architecture) and enumerates the exact report sections it produces: directory layers, cycle arcs, file clusters, per-directory fan-in/fan-out/instability, and impact reachability. This is far more concrete than a tautology. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from plausible siblings like `structure`, `graph_sites`, or `trend`.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite ~20 siblings. The only hint is the trailing word 'Advisory', which implies a non-mutating analysis but does not say when an agent should prefer this over the other analysis tools.

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