sqo_arch_diagram

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals timing (<25ms) and the exact output diagram types, but never states whether it is purely read-only or writes files into the repo, what permissions it needs, or what the response payload looks like; "Zero-Token Live" and "v13.0 Zenith" are marketing, not behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence, but a meaningful share of it is branding ("Zero-Token Live", "v13.0 Zenith") and a benchmark claim that don't help an agent decide or invoke. The substantive content is dense and useful, but the framing is padded.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the safety profile and return shape on its own. It names the three Mermaid diagram types but leaves open whether diagrams are written to disk or returned, and whether the operation mutates the workspace — critical gaps for an inspection tool with a filesystem-root parameter.

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 coverage is 100% for the single `workspace` parameter, so the schema itself defines it as the workspace root directory. The description adds nothing about how the workspace path is resolved (repo root vs. subdirectory, relative vs. absolute), so the baseline 3 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?

Combines specific verbs ("inspects real imports, HTTP/UI routes, and DB schemas") with a concrete output ("emit 3 GitHub-ready Mermaid diagrams: flowchart LR, flowchart TD, erDiagram"). The purpose is unambiguous, though it doesn't reference siblings like sqo_api_routes or sqo_api_contracts that overlap on route/contract inspection.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for generating visual architecture documentation from a workspace. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives for route or contract inspection.

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