rc_generate_diagrams

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

Beyond annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only), the description discloses output location (rc-method/diagrams/), the three file types, and that results are browser-viewable. It also notes the prerequisite. This adds useful behavioral context, though it does not mention failure handling or whether files are overwritten, but the idempotent annotation covers rerun safety.

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?

Three short sentences: the first establishes the primary action, the second details concrete outputs and prerequisites, the third states the save location and result. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure front-loads the most important information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is generated, where it is saved, and prerequisites. It does not explain return values or error scenarios, but for a file-generating tool with these annotations, the provided information is nearly complete.

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%, with both parameters (project_path and project_name) already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Generate architecture diagrams from the task list' and enumerates the three specific diagram types (dependency graph, Gantt timeline, architecture layers). This distinguishes it from sibling workflow tools like rc_sequence or rc_architect, making its purpose immediately unambiguous.

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 a critical prerequisite: requires rc_sequence to have been run first, and specifies where task data must reside (rc-method/tasks/). It implies when to use by mentioning the dependency, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear enough for correct selection.

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