Suggest an ArchiMate view for a concern

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the behavioral nature: it returns a proposed view plan, not a rendered diagram, and includes explicit criteria for completion and exclusions ('what must stay off the page'). This conveys the advisory, non-modifying nature of the tool.

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 a single, well-structured English sentence (plus a Japanese equivalent) that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the output components. Every phrase adds value and there is no redundant 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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value by enumerating the key parts of the proposed view: layers, elements, layout, relationships, completion criteria, and exclusions. It lacks only minor contextual details such as return format or handling of ambiguous concerns, but overall it is complete enough for correct use.

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 all three parameters. The description reiterates that 'concern' is a free-text stakeholder concern but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('propose'/'suggest') with a clear resource ('an ArchiMate view') and explicitly defines the scope: layers, elements, layout, relationships, completion criteria, and exclusions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling diagram-generation tools, which actually render 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?

The description clearly states the input condition ('from a free-text stakeholder concern') and the intended outcome, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when a rendered diagram is needed instead of a view plan.

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