generate_er_diagram

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

The description only states 'generate' without detailing side effects like whether it overwrites existing files, creates new ones, or requires specific permissions. The lack of annotations places full burden on the description, which remains generic.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Generate') and structured to list key components, achieving high clarity with minimal words.

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 complexity of an ER diagram tool and the presence of a nested 'spec' object, the description lacks essential context about how to construct the spec, what output format is produced, or how the tool integrates with sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use it.

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 schema provides only parameter names and types (spec as object, output_path as string) with no descriptions. The tool description does not explain what 'spec' should contain or how 'output_path' is used, offering no semantic clarity beyond the bare schema.

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 generates a relational database ER schema diagram with specific elements (tables, primary/foreign keys, types, cardinalities), distinguishing it from sibling diagram generators like sequence or C4.

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 implies usage for ER diagrams but lacks explicit conditions or comparison to alternatives such as generate_smart_diagram or generate_c4_diagram. No 'use this when' guidance is provided.

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