get_statussheet_components

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but description says 'Returns...' implying a read-only operation. This contradicts annotations and fails to disclose potential destructive behavior or side effects.

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?

Two sentences, but first sentence is a general statement about Cloud Diagrams not directly about the tool's action. Could be more direct and concise.

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?

With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on return value, layer concept, and examples. Leaves significant gaps for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 80%, so schema already documents most parameters. Description adds context that at least one component type array is required, but does not elaborate on 'p' or 'link' parameters beyond schema.

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?

Description talks about 'Cloud Diagrams' but tool name is 'get_statussheet_components', causing confusion. It states 'Returns the specified components of a diagram layer' but does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cloud_diagram_components'. The purpose is muddled.

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?

Provides minimal guidance: 'Provide at least one component type with one or more IDs in the request body'. No mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor exclusions or prerequisites.

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