Get an ArcSync diagram

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is low; the description still adds substantive behavior — what each format returns, that mermaid is the default, and that both responses include an interactive-canvas link. It does not describe error behavior for an unknown graphId.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then format semantics, then the routing hint. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by describing both response shapes and the canvas link. Only minor gaps remain, such as failure behavior for a missing or stale graphId.

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 coverage is 50%: graphId is documented in the schema, but the format enum has no description there. The description compensates by naming both enum values, declaring mermaid the default, and explaining what each yields — real meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: "Fetch one architecture diagram ArcSync parsed from infrastructure-as-code." An agent knows exactly what it gets. It stops short of differentiating from the closest sibling, get_diagram_source, which also sounds like a way to obtain a diagram's content.

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?

Gives clear usage context with "Prefer this to inferring architecture from source files" and prescribes which format to pick for display versus reasoning. It names no exclusions and never says when to use get_diagram_source or get_delta instead, leaving the main sibling ambiguity unresolved.

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