generate_archimate_diagram

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates diagrams but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies data, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key details (formats), with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output specifics, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's understanding despite the good schema coverage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters ('elements', 'relationships', 'format') with detailed descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples, but the high schema coverage justifies a baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Generate'), the resource ('ArchiMate diagrams'), and the output formats ('Mermaid or Draw.io format'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_archimate_xml' (which exports XML rather than diagrams) or 'list_archimate_elements' (which lists elements rather than generating diagrams), missing full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export_archimate_xml' or 'validate_archimate_model'. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing elements and relationships as input) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.

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