Write all fork diagrams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description discloses that it writes files (svg-07 through svg-12) to a directory, which is some behavioral transparency, but doesn't state whether existing files are overwritten, whether the command is idempotent, what naming constraints exist, or what happens on failure. For a file-writing tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient context.

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 brief and front-loaded, naming the outputs first ('svg-07 through svg-12'), then the destination. No wasted words. The single sentence covers purpose and parameter. Efficient formatting.

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 batch file-generation tool with no output schema and no annotations. It has one optional parameter. The description explains which files are written and where, but doesn't state whether this is a destructive write, whether files already exist, whether it regenerates from a canonical source, or what relationship svg-07 through svg-12 have to each other. For a tool that writes six files to disk, more behavioral context is warranted.

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% for the single parameter outDir, which is documented as 'Absolute output directory. Defaults to <repo>/images'. The description adds the clarification that this overrides the default output location. With a single param and high coverage, the description complements the schema reasonably well by linking outDir to the filesystem 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?

Description says 'Generate svg-07 through svg-12 into images/ (or outDir)' with verb 'Generate' and specific resource (svg-07 through svg-12). It distinguishes from siblings like generate_diagram by targeting a specific batch, but the exact nature of 'fork diagrams' vs plain 'diagrams' is unclear from title alone.

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 implies usage (generating a specific batch of files into an output directory), and mentions outDir as an option. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus generate_diagram, nor when-guidance or exclusions. It's implied that this is for batch-generating fork diagrams specifically.

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