veto_diagram

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's claim of generating a diagram is consistent and non-contradictory. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this (e.g., no mention of file system access 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for its purpose.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description clearly states that the return type is 'diagram text' and its intended usage (paste into renderers). The schema covers all parameters, and no nested objects or enums exist. The tool is simple enough that this description suffices.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains parameters like 'focus', 'project_dir', and 'diagram_type'. The description does not add additional meaning or usage guidance for these parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Generates') and resource ('Mermaid architecture diagram of the project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'veto_doc_gen' or 'veto_project_map_get' by focusing on diagram generation.

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 gives context on output usage ('ready to paste into GitHub, Notion, or any Mermaid renderer'), which implies when to use the output. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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