arch_generate_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 only states that markup is generated and says nothing about side effects, authentication requirements, external API usage, failure modes, or what happens to the generated output. The presence of an api_key parameter suggests authentication behavior, but this is not 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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. The primary action and output are front-loaded, and all content is relevant.

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?

Despite moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain expected return values, required versus optional parameters in practice, whether api_key is required for certain diagrams, or how the diagram generation is triggered from the analysis summary.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema by tying the output formats to Mermaid/PlantUML and the input to project analysis, but it does not clarify how diagram_type, format, and architecture_summary interact.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Generate'), a concrete resource ('architecture diagram markup'), and the supported output formats ('Mermaid or PlantUML'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like arch_analyze_structure and arch_generate_docs by focusing on diagram generation rather than analysis or documentation.

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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'from project analysis' hints at an input condition, but there is no explicit guidance about when this tool is preferred over arch_generate_docs or arch_analyze_structure.

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