diagram_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the content returned (rules, examples, node types, setup checks), the environment prerequisites (Graphviz, Git, Terraform), and the intended downstream behavior (base the graph on the closest example and keep its level of detail). It does not mention auth or rate limits, which is a minor gap for a read-only reference tool.

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 critical instruction is front-loaded ('Read this once before calling render_graph'), but the middle sentence is a long, tangled clause chain that splices the setup/install check into the list of returned content, hurting readability. The information mostly earns its place, but the structure is not clean.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers what is returned, the usage flow, and drafting guidance. Together with the schema, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though behavioral edges like pagination or error behavior are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters, including that 'pattern' names an entry from the patterns list. The description's 'call again with pattern to get one' largely restates the schema, adding only the two-phase usage framing, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns TerraVision graph rules, worked example graphs, per-provider node types, and setup/install status. It clearly positions itself as the prerequisite reference tool before render_graph, though it only differentiates itself from that one sibling and not from the other diagram-generating tools.

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?

It explicitly says to read it once before calling render_graph, and explains the second mode: call again with 'pattern' to fetch a specific pattern graph. It also gives conditional action guidance (if Graphviz or Git is missing, tell the user what to install before drafting a diagram).

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