umlforge_onboarding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output-shape detail (what the package contains) and a tier constraint (Pro/Team/Enterprise only for report_mode) beyond annotations. However, with output schema present and annotations covering safety, this is solid but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then clearly sectioned USE THIS WHEN / NOT FOR / Produces / Args. Every sentence earns its place; no filler. Bullet structure makes it skimmable.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, yet the Produces section still helpfully previews output artifacts including report_mode extras. Parameter guidance compensates for 0% schema coverage. Minor gap: no note on idempotency or openWorld behavior beyond annotations.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does document all five parameters with examples (e.g. tech_stack = "FastAPI, PostgreSQL, React, Railway"), notes pain_points is optional, and explains report_mode's effect and tier restriction. Slight gap: key_workflows says "2-3 flows" which is helpful but system_description guidance is thin.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Create a day-one knowledge-transfer package for a developer joining a team") and the NOT FOR section explicitly names sibling tools (umlforge_reverse_engineer, umlforge_stakeholder_arch, umlforge_api_sequence) with the disambiguating condition. An agent can route to the correct UMLForge tool without opening schemas.

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?

USE THIS WHEN gives three concrete triggering scenarios and NOT FOR names three alternative tools with the condition that selects each. This exceeds typical when-to-use guidance by covering both inclusion and exclusion criteria.

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