Draw a value stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the output format (Mermaid, left-to-right), the hierarchical 'hanging' of capabilities under stages, and the flagging of stages with no capability attached. It stops short of edge-case behavior (empty stages array, unknown name) but adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond a generic 'draws a diagram.'

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 compact sentences per language, with the core function in the first sentence and the usage insight in the second, and zero filler. The bilingual duplication is justified by the lang parameter supporting ja/en/both.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the return value (a Mermaid diagram), how stages and their capabilities map into it, and the special flagging behavior. Minor gaps remain: behavior with the default empty stages array and whether name is a label or must reference existing data.

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 schema already documents name, lang, and stages as the baseline. The description adds behavioral meaning beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of the capabilities array (hung under each stage) and of an empty array (the stage gets flagged), tying the stages structure to visible diagram behavior.

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+resource ('Draw a value stream left to right in Mermaid') plus two distinguishing behaviors: hanging supporting capabilities under each stage and flagging stages with no capability attached. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like diagram_capability_map, value_stream_method, and diagram_application_landscape.

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 only usage context is 'Paired with the capability map it shows which capability in which stage is weak,' which implies a combined-analysis scenario but never names alternatives or exclusions among the many sibling diagram tools. An agent gets no explicit guidance on when to choose this over diagram_capability_map or draft_capability_map.

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