get_diagram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('understand the current state'), but does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications or require any special permissions. It also doesn't describe the return format, though an output schema exists. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 well-structured with a summary, a usage sentence, and an Args section. It's concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args block is slightly repetitive of the schema but valuable given the lack of schema descriptions. No wasted 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?

The tool has only two parameters and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It provides a good overview of what the tool returns (tables, columns, relationships, groups) and when to use it. It's complete for a read-only inspection tool, though it could mention branch behavior or read-only nature explicitly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides an Args block explaining schema_uuid as the schema's UUID and branch_name as the branch (default main), adding meaning beyond the bare parameter names and types. This helps the agent understand the parameters, though it doesn't go into details like valid values or formats.

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 retrieves the full schema structure: tables, columns, relationships, groups. This specific verb+resource clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_schemas (which lists schemas) or get_commit_dag (which deals with commits).

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?

It explicitly tells the user to use this tool to understand the current schema state before making changes, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for a read-only inspection tool.

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