Get the registry-wide reference diagram

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses that broken documents are skipped, rendering never fails for content, cycle edges are red, unresolved references become top-level nodes, labels are truncated by environment default, include_feat drops FEAT nodes and touching edges, and title is sanitized but not truncated. It also clarifies that the return value is PlantUML source, not a specmgr document.

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 front-loaded and every part carries relevant information, but it is dense and packs many clauses into long sentences. The spec references and parenthetical details are useful for determinism but add reading burden.

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?

For a complex rendering tool with an output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It covers scope, node and edge construction, special cases, both parameters, return type, and validation path.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for both parameters. It explains that include_feat=False drops every FEAT node and every edge touching a dropped node, and that title overrides the default Reference Graph title while being sanitized but never truncated.

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 states a specific verb and resource: render and return a deterministic PlantUML component diagram of the whole reference registry. It clearly differentiates the registry-wide scope from the sibling get_reference_diagram by describing one node per parseable document across all 14 domains and every unique reference edge.

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 clear usage context by saying it covers the whole registry and returns PlantUML source rather than a specmgr document, with guidance to validate via specmgr plantuml-check or validate_plantuml. It does not explicitly name get_reference_diagram as the alternative or state exclusions, so it falls short of full when-to-use routing.

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