get_architecture_view

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what the returned view looks like, how large it may be, or whether the workspace must be indexed first. Given three sibling 'architecture' tools and a 'scan_workspace'/'init_workspace' family, omitting any prerequisite or output shape context is a real gap.

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?

It is a single short fragment, so there is no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise: it lacks a leading verb and the parenthetical token list duplicates schema content instead of spending the words on purpose or usage.

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 annotations, no output schema, and four optional parameters, the description should explain what a 'view' returns at each level and when to reach for it. Instead it is a bare noun phrase, leaving the agent unable to predict output or pick among the architecture siblings.

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 parameters (level, scope, workspacePath, includeLibraries) are already fully documented in the schema, including the meaning of 'project-map'. The description only echoes the level enum and adds no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.

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 the resource ('architecture view of workspace structure') and enumerates the level values, but it has no verb and largely restates the tool name. It gives no basis for choosing between this and the sibling tools get_architecture_map or get_architecture_overview, so the agent cannot tell what distinguishes a 'view' from a 'map' or an 'overview'.

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 exclusions, and no mention of the closely named alternatives. The listed level tokens are already documented verbatim in the schema's level parameter, so repeating them adds no routing guidance.

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