Draw an application landscape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the output format (Mermaid diagram), the analysis performed (connection counts), and the warning threshold (15 interfaces). It does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects, but the return-oriented wording and diagram-generation behavior make the tool's behavior sufficiently transparent.

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?

Everything is front-loaded: first clause names the output, second states the analytical extra, third gives the business context. The bilingual text is efficient and every sentence adds information; nothing is filler.

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 all-optional params and no output schema, the description tells the agent what the returned artifact is, what analytical extras it includes, and when it belongs in the workflow. It could mention behavior for empty input or missing layer assignments, but those are minor gaps given the sparse but clear schema.

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 each parameter already has bilingual descriptions and defaults, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description does not add per-parameter guidance, but it does add domain context (layers, interface threshold) that helps the agent choose values, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource: draws applications and interfaces as a layered Mermaid diagram. The added analysis (most-connected apps, >15 interface warning) and the Phase C baseline purpose give a distinctive purpose that separates it from sibling diagram tools like diagram_capability_map or diagram_c4_context.

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?

Clearly contextualizes use: it turns the Phase C baseline into a discussable picture, so an agent can infer when to choose it during architecture landscape work. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them, but the Phase C framing is enough guidance for most calls.

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