get_architecture_map

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only behavior, scope, result size, or whether the map is a flat list or a hierarchy. Listing the four entity types hints at the return contents, but that is the only behavioral signal.

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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 zero required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is roughly adequate but thin: it enumerates the entity types in the map without describing the shape of the result or the default scope when filters are omitted.

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 both optional parameters (projectName, workspacePath) are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's mention of 'workspace' and 'projects' loosely echoes those filters but adds no semantics beyond the schema, such as what happens when neither is supplied.

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?

Names the resource ('Infrastructure map') and enumerates the entity types it covers (workspace folders, projects, internal folders, databases), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it never states that it retrieves/returns this map, and it gives no basis for choosing it over close siblings such as get_architecture_overview or get_architecture_view.

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 at all: no preconditions, no exclusions, and no reference to the clearly overlapping architecture siblings. An agent must guess whether this is the summary view, the detailed view, or a distinct dataset.

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