Get a diagram version

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds that it returns XML + score and is 'Free', which are useful behavioral traits. It does not describe the exact return format or error behavior, but the additions go beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded sentence with an optional parenthetical example and a separate one-word sentence 'Free.' Every word adds value and there is no redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, why to use it, and the cost (Free). The sibling context and schema round out the needed information.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema itself already describes each parameter adequately.

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 tool fetches a specific version's XML and Well-Architected score, using the verb 'fetch' with a specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_versions and revert_diagram by specifying the exact output and use case.

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 phrase 'e.g. to inspect before reverting' provides a concrete usage scenario, implicitly guiding the agent to use this tool for pre-revert inspection. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the example is clear enough for simple read-only context.

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