Get an authored diagram's source

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine constraint — only diagrams authored via push_diagram have retrievable source — but says nothing about failure behavior for unknown or non-authored graphIds.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource and round-trip purpose front-loaded, followed by the ID provenance. No redundant or filler wording.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (source text) and where the ID comes from. Minor absence of error-case guidance keeps it from a 5.

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 100% and the graphId parameter already documents that it is the value returned by push_diagram. The description restates that same fact rather than adding new meaning (e.g., acceptable ID forms or reuse across versions), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Return the stored ArcSync source text of an authored diagram') and scopes it to diagrams created via push_diagram. It implicitly separates itself from get_diagram by emphasizing 'source text', but never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Describes a clear workflow context: use it to retrieve source, edit it, and push again, with the graphId coming from push_diagram. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to use get_diagram instead), which keeps it short of a 5.

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