vpp_get_sequence_diagram

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what permissions or project context are needed, or what happens when the named diagram does not exist. Its content is essentially a description of the returned payload, which is already covered by the declared output schema, so it adds little behavioral value beyond structured fields.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the key noun front-loaded, so there is no padding. However, it spends its limited words enumerating output fields instead of the call's purpose, and the Polish text is inconsistent with an otherwise English tool/sibling vocabulary.

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 an output schema, so return values need not be explained, but with two required undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description should at minimum explain what path and name refer to and what a failed lookup yields. It omits both, leaving invocation details underspecified.

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 0% for two required parameters (path, name), and the description never mentions either one — it does not clarify whether path is a project path or a file path, nor how name identifies the diagram. With full documentation responsibility falling on the description and nothing provided, this is a clear gap.

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 names the resource ("diagram sekwencji") and implies retrieval by saying it is an "opis" (description) of that diagram, but never states the verb explicitly (get/read/return) and gives no differentiation from siblings such as vpp_add_sequence_diagrams, vpp_delete_sequence_diagram, or vpp_export_plantuml. An agent can guess it reads a diagram, but must infer that from the tool name rather than the text.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the closely related siblings (add/delete sequence diagram, export to PlantUML). The agent is left to infer that this is the read counterpart to the mutating siblings purely from naming conventions.

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