Get an Agentic Reference Architecture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what the returned body includes and that it composes patterns/knowledge. This is meaningful but not extensive; a 4 is appropriate given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource scope are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is delivered in a short second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has an output schema, read-only annotations, and well-documented parameters, so the description does not need to restate those. The description completes the missing context: why this tool exists in the workflow, what content it returns, and when to call it. No important guidance is absent for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and both `slug` and `locale` already have clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds the workflow context of using a slug obtained from search/list, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one reference architecture'), and the identifying key ('by slug'). It also enumerates the returned content (request flow, reference scenario, KPIs, cost & scaling, patterns/knowledge), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_architectures or get_knowledge.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: once `search` or `list_architectures` has produced a slug. This provides a clear prerequisite and names the discovery siblings that should precede it, leaving no ambiguity about the intended workflow.

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