List ArcSync diagrams

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: results are scoped to the caller's workspace, deduplicated per repo/branch/path, and sorted newest first. It does not mention pagination beyond the limit cap or total counts, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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 sentences, zero filler. The ordering and scope constraint is front-loaded, and the workflow pointer follows immediately after.

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 two-param, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return field (graphId), ordering, and filtering semantics. It could say more about what each row contains beyond graphId, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns an extra point by enumerating what `query` matches against (repository URL, owner, repo name, branch, path, project type) and confirming substring-style filtering. `limit` is left entirely to the schema, which already documents its default and maximum.

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 ("List the architecture diagrams"), plus scope ("caller's ArcSync workspace"), cardinality ("one per repository, branch and IaC path") and ordering ("newest first"). The list_versions sibling is about versions rather than diagrams, so the resource distinction is legible without opening a schema.

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 an explicit downstream workflow: use this to obtain a graphId before calling get_diagram, describe_resource or get_delta. It lacks an explicit when-not or a contrast with list_versions/list_icons, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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