Get the registry-wide reference diagram

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: broken documents are skipped and 'the render never fails for content', truncation limit SPECMGR_DIAGRAM_MAX_TITLE (default 40) is disclosed, title is 'sanitized but never truncated', and it clarifies the return is PlantUML source, not a specmgr document. That is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs to call and consume this tool safely.

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?

A single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the primary purpose, but the long clause chain listing diagram construction rules (cycles, unresolved nodes, edge syntax) is hard to parse and could be tightened. Every element is arguably useful, but the density hurts scanability.

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 an output schema existing, the description correctly focuses on what the output IS (PlantUML source, not a specmgr document) and how to validate it — the one thing the schema can't convey. Combined with parameter behavior and rendering guarantees, an agent has everything needed to invoke and consume this tool correctly.

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 0% and both parameters lack schema descriptions, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining include_feat (drops FEAT nodes and touching edges) and title (overrides default 'Reference Graph', sanitized not truncated). This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema. Minor deduction because defaults are stated for title but include_feat's default is left implicit in prose.

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?

Specific verb (Render and return) plus a precisely scoped resource (the whole reference registry, all 13 domains) and output format (PlantUML source). Clearly distinguished from the sibling get_reference_diagram, which operates on a narrower scope.

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?

Tells the agent what to do with the result — 'run it through specmgr plantuml-check (CLI) or the validate_plantuml tool' — which is a real next-step routing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this registry-wide variant over the narrower get_reference_diagram sibling, beyond the implied scope difference.

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