get_adr_diagrams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral transparency responsibility. It discloses that diagrams are retrieved, their types, and the tier requirement. This is sufficient for a read operation, but it lacks details on auth, rate limits, 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 two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action and source, the second adds diagram types and requirements. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (Mermaid diagrams of three types). It covers all relevant aspects given the tool's simplicity and the rich sibling context.

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 description adds value beyond the schema. It mentions 'Requires Pro+ tier', which is critical context for parameter usage (e.g., whether the tool is accessible). This extra information justifies above baseline.

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 clearly states it retrieves Mermaid diagrams for ADRs, specifying the types (workflow, relationship, impact). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_adr_context or get_adr_templates, though it does not explicitly differentiate from them.

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 mentions the 'Requires Pro+ tier' prerequisite, giving some usage context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., get_adr_context for textual context). There is no guidance on exclusions or when not to use it.

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