score_architecture

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

Clearly states behavior as 'Pure computation — no LLM, no network. Read-only.' This fully compensates for missing annotations and discloses that the tool is safe and non-destructive.

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 concise with no redundant sentences. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by return details, usage context, and behavioral note.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values (dimension scores, overall score, letter grade, notes) and covers weights and dimension details. Complete for a simple scoring tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the single parameter. The tool description adds context about scoring dimensions but does not elaborate on the parameter's structure beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool scores an architecture across five dimensions and returns a weighted score, letter grade, and notes. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying when to use and listing alternatives for specific findings.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('quick quality summary before a design review') and provides exclusions ('For specific findings, use lint_architecture, security_scan, or validate_compliance').

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