Get the sequence-diagram skeleton

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

No annotations are provided so the description carries the full burden. It discloses extensive behavioral traits: path-safety-guarded id with ValueError for wrong format, cache-aware reads, ParseFailureResult for unparseable docs, and not-found error for absent ids. This is rich behavioral context beyond what an agent would otherwise know.

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 long sentence packed with dense, parenthetical references and jargon ('the feat-150 precedent', 'specmgr://uc/plantuml §2.9'). While front-loaded with the purpose, the density and nested clauses hinder readability.

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?

Complete for a complex tool: covers behavior, error modes, the broader workflow context, and explicitly notes that no specmgr tool writes .puml. The output schema exists so return values need not be described in detail. An agent has enough to invoke 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains id validation behavior (path-safety-guarded, wrong-format id raises ValueError before file access), which adds important semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not describe the id format itself.

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: 'Render and return the deterministic PlantUML sequence-diagram skeleton for one use case'. The description clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_uc_diagram, get_uc_plantuml_template, and validate_plantuml by specifying it produces the skeleton starting point.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'the starting point of the generate_uc_sequence_diagram prompt flow (the agent attributes the markers, validates via validate_plantuml, and writes the .puml file host-native; no specmgr tool writes .puml)'. Names alternatives and disambiguates the boundary.

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