Suggests high-confidence architectural links for an architecture block by analyzing AST source imports and layered conventions, clarifying valid dependencies.
Suggest high-confidence architectural links for an architecture Block based on AST source imports and layered conventions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| blockId | Yes | ||
| projectRoot | No | ||
| taskContextId | No | ||
| includeStructured | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Input schema / properties / taskContextIdAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Suggest' and 'based on AST source imports' imply a read-only analysis, but the description never explicitly states that no graph or architecture mutations occur, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or whether it requires local source files through projectRoot.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, target, and basis efficiently, making it easy for an agent to scan.
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?
The description covers the core purpose but is incomplete for confident invocation. There is no output schema, no parameter explanations, no mention of what the returned 'links' look like, no guidance on optional parameters, and no clarification of whether the tool modifies anything. An agent would struggle to know how to use taskContextId or includeStructured effectively.
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 0% and the description names none of the four parameters. It implicitly maps to blockId via 'architecture Block' and hints at projectRoot through 'AST source imports', but it does not explain taskContextId or includeStructured. The description fails to compensate for the schema's complete lack of parameter documentation.
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 uses a specific verb 'suggest' and identifies the resource ('architectural links for an architecture Block') plus the method ('based on AST source imports and layered conventions'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like architecture_connect, which would actually apply or connect links rather than merely suggest them.
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?
The description implies the tool should be used when the agent wants candidate architectural links derived from source imports and layering rules. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, what alternatives exist, or how it differs from graph_patch, graph_mutate, or architecture_connect beyond the word 'suggest.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.