Map an ADM phase to ArchiMate

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It makes clear this is a read-style lookup that 'returns' a structured set of content (including what not to draw), rather than mutating anything. It could add more about behavior for invalid phase IDs, but the output scope is well 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?

Two sentences (plus a necessary bilingual equivalent) carry the core scope up front and then list the additional return categories. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return categories (view name, layer, elements, deliverables, non-goals, weekly move). It doesn't give the exact output structure, but for this simple 2-parameter lookup tool the coverage is largely complete.

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 the schema already documents phase and lang with an example and enum. The description reinforces 'one ADM phase' but adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 names a specific operation — mapping one ADM phase to ArchiMate drawing guidance — and enumerates the exact output categories: layer, elements, view name, deliverables, exclusions. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like archimate_vs_togaf or suggest_archimate_view even without naming them.

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?

It implies the use case ('for one ADM phase') but gives no explicit when-to-use instructions and no alternatives or exclusions. With dozens of sibling tools, the agent gets no routing help to choose this over suggest_archimate_view, generate_deliverable_template, or map_security_to_adm.

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