find_cloud_diagrams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns matching diagram files but does not elaborate on behavior like pagination or sorting. Given annotations cover the main safety concerns, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering when to use, what it returns, and negative usage with alternatives. Every word is essential, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 simple find tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential: purpose, return type, and negative guidance. It could specify the return format more precisely (e.g., list of file paths), but it is mostly complete given the low complexity.

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 input schema already fully describes the 'resources' parameter (array of resource IDs). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance it further.

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 clearly specifies the tool's purpose: finding architecture/cloud infrastructure diagrams. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('cloud diagrams'), and distinguishes it from siblings by stating what it does not cover (cost analysis, incidents) with explicit tool names.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: when to use (user wants diagrams), and when not to use (cost analysis -> run_query, incidents -> get_cloud_incidents). This directly helps an agent decide between sibling tools.

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