Get architecture diagram

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates that this is a fetch operation returning raw IR and a version, and that it is meant to provide accurate ids for subsequent edits. It does not mention auth or error behavior, but for a simple read operation the transparency is strong.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior, then adds the crucial workflow context and return shape. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a one-parameter read tool with no output schema. The description covers what is fetched, what is returned, and why it should be called before edit_diagram. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, and the schema already documents diagramId as 'The diagram to fetch.' The description adds context about what a diagram consists of, but does not add meaningful semantic detail about the parameter beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Fetch a diagram's raw IR (nodes, groups, edges with their real ids) and its current version.' It clearly states what the tool returns and why it matters, distinguishing it from the create/edit siblings.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Call this before edit_diagram so your ops reference ids that actually exist and you pass the correct baseVersion.' This clearly states when to use it, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the edit tool.

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