Draw the ADM cycle with current progress

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait: it automatically reflects engagement progress if an engagement exists, otherwise uses arguments. It also states it lists what to do in the current phase below the diagram. With no annotations, more behavioral details such as output limitations or rendering specifics could be added, but the main behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 compact, bilingual, and provides essential information in two sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds the engagement-aware behavior and output contents without excessive detail.

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 diagram generation tool with no required parameters, the description covers what the diagram includes, how data is sourced, and what is appended. It is reasonably complete, though it does not mention whether a specific output schema or further rendering options are available.

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 description references the argument fallback but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the schema. The schema already describes completed, currentPhase, and lang, so the description adds minimal additional meaning.

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 draws the ADM cycle as a Mermaid diagram with Requirements Management at the centre, phase statuses colour-coded, and the current phase highlighted. It is distinct from other diagram tools like diagram_capability_map, though it could more explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

The description explains that the tool uses the current engagement when one exists, otherwise falls back to the arguments, which implies when to call it versus providing explicit parameters. However, it does not state when to prefer this over other diagram tools or what conditions make it inappropriate.

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