get_architectural_context

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

The description mentions automatically setting up ADR infrastructure, implying side effects (e.g., file creation) but does not detail what is created, modified, or destroyed. With no annotations, this is insufficient for the agent to understand the tool's behavioral impact.

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 sentence that attempts to cover multiple aspects (context retrieval, ADR setup, workflow). It is not overly verbose but could be better structured to separate core function from side effects.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It only says 'Get detailed architectural context' without specifying format or content. Side effects are mentioned but not elaborated. For a tool with nested objects and no annotations, this is incomplete.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add meaningful context beyond the schema, so baseline score is appropriate. The nested 'conversationContext' is well-documented in 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 clearly states it retrieves architectural context for specific files or the entire project, and mentions setting up ADR infrastructure and outcome-focused workflow. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_adr_context' or 'analyze_project_ecosystem', though the workflow aspect is vague.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_adr_context' or 'analyze_project_ecosystem'. The description does not specify prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent without decision support.

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