Get the PlantUML sequence-diagram example

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the payload is raw PlantUML, verbatim, not markdown, not a validate-able specmgr document (no frontmatter), and that it reads the packaged file fresh on every call. It omits permission/error behavior, but the format and freshness disclosures are substantive.

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 verb+object, and every clause adds information (format, attribution state, non-validate-ability, freshness). It is a dense single sentence with a parenthetical, slightly heavy but no filler.

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 zero-param getter with an output schema, the description covers what is returned, its exact format, and its non-validate-able nature. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it is missing, though it could route more explicitly among the many uc example/template siblings.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise to clarify and the description correctly does not invent arguments.

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 (Return) and resource (PlantUML sequence diagram for the packaged 'Buy Goods' example UC) with clear format scoping (raw PlantUML source, verbatim). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the markdown/specmgr siblings and the template/skeleton variants by describing what the artifact is and is not.

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?

It signals its role as 'the model for the generate_uc_sequence_diagram prompt flow', which implies when it is useful, but it never names an alternative (e.g., get_uc_plantuml_template, get_uc_sequence_skeleton, get_uc_diagram) or states when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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