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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully notes that the result includes capabilities and file extensions, but it adds little about permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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 sentences, both front-loaded and free of repetition. The first defines the resource and return content; the second gives the sequencing guidance without wasting space.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, and primary usage sequence. It could more explicitly address the import_arch_diagram sibling, but otherwise an agent has enough to call 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%, so both parameters, including expectedProjectId, are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning such as how expectedProjectId interacts with the session project, so the baseline of 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 and resource: it lists export/import formats for architecture diagrams of kind='arch'. It also distinguishes the output by mentioning capabilities and file extensions, which is enough for an agent to differentiate it from export_arch_diagram and import_arch_diagram.

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?

It explicitly says the tool fits before export_arch_diagram to establish the target, giving clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use it or whether it also supports the import_arch_diagram flow, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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