Get Project Architecture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only describes the return structure and usage context, but does not mention any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The description is safe but lacks transparency beyond the output format.

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 concise with three sentences that are front-loaded with the most important information (what the tool returns). Every sentence serves a purpose: return structure, usage context, differentiation from siblings, and parameter hint. No wasted words.

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 is a simple read operation with one optional parameter and an available output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, when to use it, and how to get the projectId. It also differentiates from many siblings. The information is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 already describes the projectId parameter with default behavior. The description adds value by noting 'projectId from list-projects if unsure', which provides practical guidance beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description enhances understanding without being redundant.

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 states 'Returns vertical structure: project description, module list, dataFlow' which includes a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools get-slice and get-module-details by contrasting their use cases.

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 says 'Use for refactoring boundaries between components' and provides when-not-to-use with alternatives: 'For all HTTP endpoints or domain terms use get-slice—not this tool. For one module's files and examples use get-module-details.' Also advises using list-projects to obtain projectId if unsure.

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