generate_diagrams

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds concrete side effects by stating it writes .archiet/diagrams/ with 3 .mmd files and an HTML viewer. This goes beyond the basic mutation flag and provides useful details about output locations and file types, though it does not mention overwrite behavior or permissions.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose and diagram types, the second explains the file output and rendering compatibility. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 is simple (one optional boolean), there is no output schema, and the description fully covers what it produces, where it writes when requested, and how to use the output. It is complete enough for an agent to confidently select and invoke the 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?

The input schema has one boolean parameter 'write' with a full description already covering the write-to-disk behavior, and the tool description echoes this. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool generates architecture diagrams as Mermaid sources, listing three specific diagram types (module dependency graph, domain-model ER diagram, HTTP route map). It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource, and the distinctive purpose separates it from sibling tools that handle scanning, summaries, or impact analysis.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when architecture documentation diagrams are needed, and it notes that the Mermaid output is compatible with GitHub, GitLab, Notion, and VS Code. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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