design_erd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't state what 'requirements' means here, whether this is a read-only design generation or mutates state, whether it persists anything, or what artifacts are produced. There's no disclosure of side effects or outputs.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, gets the point across. Not overly verbose. However, this brevity might be concealing the absence of important usage context rather than being efficient with rich 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry full context. With zero parameters, the description is the only thing the agent has to work with. It identifies the core function but lacks context about what triggers this design step, what input format requirements take, or what the resulting diagram is used for downstream.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the parameter semantics burden is minimal. The description mentions the input source ('from requirements') which provides the only context needed. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adequately conveys that requirements are the implicit input.

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 'Design Entity-Relationship Diagram from requirements' uses a specific verb (Design) and resource (Entity-Relationship Diagram) plus the source (requirements). It's clear about the core purpose, though it doesn't distinguish from siblings like specify_api_endpoints or extract_requirements in terms of when ERD design fits into the workflow.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like extract_requirements and specify_api_endpoints exist, there's no clarification about whether this should be used before/after those, or what kind of requirements are expected as input. The precedence relationship to other design tools is entirely absent.

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