All 5 tools have minimal descriptions (20-80 chars) and extremely sparse parameter documentation. Input schemas are present but lack depth: parameters have type and description, but no enums, ranges, or validation constraints. No output schemas are documented. Tool names follow verb_noun pattern (arc_expand_intent, arc_classify_risk) but descriptions are generic and do not explain WHEN to use each tool or what distinguishes them. No error handling guidance, no recovery paths, no examples of expected outputs. The server appears to be a proof-of-concept rather than production-grade tooling.

• Expand all tool descriptions to 80 - 150 characters. Include: (1) what the tool does, (2) when to use it vs. similar tools, (3) what it returns. Example: 'Expand a user intent into a structured plan with goals, constraints, and suggested steps. Use this first to break down high-level requests into actionable tasks before risk classification.'
• Add output schema documentation for each tool. Specify the structure of returned objects, field types, and which fields are required. Example for arc_expand_intent: 'Returns {goals: string[], constraints: string[], steps: {action: string, rationale: string}[]}'.
• Add enums and ranges to parameters. For arc_classify_risk, specify valid risk tiers (e.g., 'low|medium|high|critical'). For arc_audit_completion, document expected result formats.
• Document error scenarios and recovery paths. Example: 'If intent is ambiguous, returns error with clarification questions. Retry with refined intent or call arc_expand_intent with additional context.'
• Add a tool composition guide in the server description or README. Explain the typical call sequence: expand_intent → classify_risk → derive_completion → audit_completion. Show which tools depend on outputs from others.

Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.

• Relies on Logging (deprecated) - log to stderr or use OpenTelemetry