Get the multi-UC package diagram

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire burden and does so richly: read-only status, path-safety guarding with a ValueError on malformed ids before any file access, cache-aware reads, skipped slots for missing/broken documents, deterministic 'Unresolved UC reference' notes, and an explicit guarantee the render never fails on an id or reference.

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 purpose and information-dense, but the single sprawling paragraph with stacked parentheticals and em-dashes is harder to parse than it needs to be. No fluff, though every clause carries real detail.

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 this covers output type (PlantUML source), the next step (validate_plantuml), failure semantics, and id defaults. An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% (the single 'ids' param is undocumented in the schema), so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the None default semantics, the ordering source (list_uc order), how missing/broken ids degrade to skipped slots, and how unresolved references behave.

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 package diagram for a set of use cases'. It anchors the output to a frozen spec (specmgr://uc/plantuml §2.7) and distinguishes the artifact (one usecase node per document, actor union, include/extend/superordinate edges), so an agent can tell it apart from get_uc_diagram or get_reference_diagram.

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?

Gives clear operating context: ids=None renders every UC in list_uc order, and the downstream step is explicitly routed ('run it through the validate_plantuml tool'). It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling diagram tools, so it stops short of full alternative-routing.

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