design_architecture

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether this mutates state, what it costs, how long it takes, or what form the design output takes. It only implies a pipeline role via the word 'Architect'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the design outputs, with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though it spends its words on a broad noun list rather than operationally useful detail.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it does not explain the return artifact, prerequisites, or downstream handoff to implement_code. The agent gets the topic but not enough to invoke it confidently in a multi-step workflow.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the feature_plan provenance and minLength. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond that baseline.

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 concrete deliverables (system architecture, data models, APIs, scalability approach), so an agent can tell what artifact this tool produces. However, it never contrasts itself with siblings like plan_feature or implement_code, and the leading 'Architect designs...' reads as a role statement rather than a distinct verb+resource.

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 guidance, no precondition beyond the schema's 'feature plan from the Product Manager' hint, and no mention of when to prefer this over plan_feature or implement_code. The agent must infer its place in the workflow.

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