Diagram a repository

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false; the description adds the async contract (returns a graphId at once), quota consumption per call, extra server-side synthesis for CDK and Pulumi, and the private-repo auth prerequisite. These are real operational costs an agent cannot infer from structured fields, and they are consistent with the non-idempotent, non-destructive annotations.

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 sentences, no filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the cost/workflow caveats following. The long parenthetical format list and chained clauses in the first sentence make it slightly dense, but every sentence earns its place.

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 an asynchronous, quota-consuming creation tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned immediately (graphId), how to follow up, and the preconditions around quota and repository access. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so repoUrl, path, and branch are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no further parameter-level detail such as URL validation behavior or how path interacts with monorepo layouts. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('clone a GitHub repository and parse its infrastructure-as-code ... into a diagram') and enumerates the supported IaC formats. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_diagrams and get_diagram, which consume rather than create diagrams.

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 ordered workflow: poll get_parse_status until complete, then call get_diagram. It also names a when-not condition — call list_diagrams first and reuse an existing diagram — plus the constraint that private repositories require the ArcSync GitHub App.

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