Architecture diagram

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the null-when-undrawn behavior, how a diagram gets created (console Repo page, one AI call per commit), the side effect of overlay:true (adds open bugs/findings mapped by stack frames and paths), and that no indexing is required. These are precisely the behaviors an agent needs that the annotations cannot express.

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 core purpose and return shape, then details. It is dense and somewhat run-on with colon/parenthesis packing, but nearly every clause earns its place by carrying distinct behavioral or return-format information rather than restating structured fields.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description documents the return envelope ({diagram, publication}) and the overlay variant's shape, including the null cases. Combined with the creation prerequisite and indexing note, an agent has everything required to call and interpret the tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by spelling out the concrete effect of overlay:true and the meaning of the overlay payload fields (unplaced, frames_matched, considered). projectId is only labeled 'Optional', which the schema already conveys, so it adds little there.

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 and resource ('Return the latest architecture diagram of the connected repo') and enumerates what the diagram contains (nodes with label/group/path/description, edges, commit, publication). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling get_repo_digest, which returns the code itself. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use ('see where a bug sits in the app before reading code') and names the alternative with its selecting condition ('use get_repo_digest for the code itself'). It also states a key prerequisite/context ('Works without codebase indexing') and explains the null state arises until a diagram is drawn from the console Repo page.

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