get_adr_diagrams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool retrieves diagrams and requires Pro+ tier. It omits details like whether the tool modifies state, required permissions beyond tier, rate limits, or output behavior. For a read tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences, clearly front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word adds value, no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description lacks output details; it mentions 'Mermaid diagrams' without clarifying how they are returned (e.g., raw syntax, URLs). Given the tool's function and the presence of many sibling ADR tools, more context about output structure would improve completeness.

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%; both parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-level information beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('Mermaid diagrams for ADRs from ADR Aggregator'), and specifies diagram types ('workflow, relationship, and impact diagrams'). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_adr_context' or 'generate_adr_bootstrap' which serve different purposes.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires Pro+ tier') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor explicit exclusions. The usage context is implied by the tool's purpose but not stated.

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