sc_design

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (e.g., a design document, recommendations, diagrams), whether it modifies anything, or any side effects. The description is a topic tag, not a behavioral specification.

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 short phrase, but this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It lacks a full sentence and provides no structural information. Every word is generic ('system design', 'architecture', 'design patterns') and could apply to many tools.

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 tool has 4 parameters, a nested 'evidence' object, no output schema, no annotations, and 20 sibling tools. A single label cannot possibly provide the necessary context for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. It is completely inadequate for the complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds a bit of context by referencing 'architecture and design patterns', which aligns with the flags --architecture and --patterns. However, it does not explain how to fill the required 'args' string or how the 'evidence' object should be structured, so it does not meaningfully enrich the schema.

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 'System design - Architecture and design patterns' is a label rather than a clear action. It lacks a verb (e.g., 'generate', 'analyze', 'document') and does not specify what the tool does with system design. It barely distinguishes from siblings like sc_document or sc_analyze, which could also involve design-related output.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use sc_design versus the many sibling tools (e.g., sc_analyze, sc_explain, sc_document). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical usage scenarios, or exclusions. The description is entirely silent on context and alternative tools.

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