get_adr_diagrams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the Pro+ tier requirement and specifying the types of diagrams included, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 three concise sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds relevant information: the action and source, the diagram types, and the access requirement. There is no filler, though it does not go into unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema, the description provides a reasonable hint of expected results ('Includes workflow, relationship, and impact diagrams') and notes the access restriction. The optional parameters are covered by the schema. It is complete enough for a simple read-only retrieval tool, though it does not describe error or empty-result behavior.

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 both parameters (adr_path and projectPath) are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as value formats or interplay between the two parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'Mermaid diagrams for ADRs from ADR Aggregator', and lists the included diagram types. It does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling tools, but the unique focus on Mermaid diagrams makes the purpose unmistakable among the sibling list.

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 implies usage when ADR diagrams are needed, and adds a prerequisite with 'Requires Pro+ tier'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_adr_context or analyze_adr_timeline, nor does it provide exclusion guidance.

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