get_arc_diagram_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Return' clearly signals a side-effect-free retrieval operation, and specifying the exact returned content adds transparency about what the tool does. It omits details like response size or format quirks, but those are less critical for a zero-parameter reader tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, with no filler or repeated schema information.

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?

Given the tool takes no inputs and has no annotations or output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the agent will receive: the complete DiagramDef JSON contract plus the renderer authoring rules. Nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking this simple 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to add. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and a specific artifact ('the complete DiagramDef JSON contract plus the core authoring rules used by the renderer'). This is clearly distinct from listing dialects, validating a set, or creating a project.

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 purpose implies when to use it: when an agent needs the DiagramDef contract or renderer authoring rules. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to list_arc_diagram_dialects, validate_arc_diagram_set, or create_arc_diagram_project.

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