Get architecture diagram

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool fetches data and returns a specific structure, implying a read-only operation. No side effects or additional behaviors are mentioned, which is acceptable for a fetch 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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the action and return value, the second provides essential usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return shape and the critical usage context (predecessor to edit_diagram). It lacks information about error scenarios or authentication, but these are often implicit or handled elsewhere.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage—the only parameter 'diagramId' is described as 'The diagram to fetch.' The description does not add extra detail about the parameter's format or constraints, so the value added beyond the schema is minimal, meeting the 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 specifies a concrete action ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('diagram's raw IR...'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools create_diagram and edit_diagram. It outlines exactly what is returned (nodes, groups, edges, version).

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 explicitly advises calling this tool before edit_diagram to obtain valid IDs and the correct version. While it does not list alternatives or when not to use it, the usage context is clearly stated and actionable.

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