YAMLTools

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses auto-detection behavior and ability to force format, but does not mention error handling, side effects, or return format. Adequate for a conversion tool but missing some details.

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, no unnecessary words. The primary action is front-loaded, making it immediately understandable.

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 tool has only 3 parameters with no output schema. The description covers core functionality and configuration, but lacks details on output format, error behavior, or limitations. Sufficient for simple use but not fully comprehensive.

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% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds context about auto-detection, but does not significantly expand beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in baseline score.

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 tool converts between multiple data formats (YAML, JSON, XML, etc.), with auto-detection of source format. This distinguishes it from siblings like validate_yaml and visualize_yaml.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use the `from` parameter to force source format vs auto-detect. While not explicitly stating when not to use it, the sibling tools cover different use cases, making the conversion purpose clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values (id, URL), potential paywall hit, and API key requirement. This is good behavioral context for a creation tool, though it does not mention potential duplicates or error behavior.

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 concise sentences convey all necessary information without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, providing purpose, return values, and constraints efficiently.

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 and no annotations, the description adequately covers return values (id, URL), constraints (free-plan, API key), and the act of creation. It could mention optional parameters, but the schema already covers that. Overall complete for a straightforward creation tool.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a 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?

Description clearly states 'Save a new diagram to the user's account', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like update_diagram and get_diagram by indicating creation of a new resource.

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?

Provides context such as free-plan limit and API key requirement, which are prerequisites, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_yaml or convert_yaml. Siblings are listed but no comparative guidance given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the action (fetch), input (id), and output (YAML source and metadata), plus the auth requirement. However, it omits details like error handling, rate limits, or size constraints.

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 front-load the core action and output, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool (1 parameter, no output schema, low complexity), the description is mostly complete. It covers action, input, output, and auth. It could mention that it returns a single diagram, but that is implied.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter 'id' with a description. The description adds no additional meaning, matching the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'one of the user's diagrams by id', with specific output 'YAML source and metadata'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_diagrams (which returns all diagrams) and create_diagram.

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 (YAMLTools API key) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_diagrams or update_diagram. Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic operation and auth requirement, but does not disclose behavior such as pagination, sorting, limits, or whether it returns all diagrams. Essential behavioral traits are missing.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists the returned fields, followed by the auth requirement. It is extremely concise with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks details on whether results are paginated, sorted, or limited. The returned fields are listed, but context like ordering or maximum results is missing.

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?

There are no parameters (0 required, 0 optional), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but that is appropriate because no input parameters exist. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'the authenticated user's saved diagrams', and specifies the returned fields (id, title, type, visibility, updatedAt). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_diagram (single diagram) and create_diagram (creation).

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 prerequisite of a YAMLTools API key, which is helpful, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., use get_diagram for a specific diagram, create_diagram for creating). No when-not-to-use context is provided.

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

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it updates and saves, requiring an API key. It omits details like whether changes are overwritten or merged, error handling, and success/failure outcomes.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant phrases. It efficiently conveys the core functionality, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks essential context such as expected return value, error conditions, and whether the diagram must exist. It is insufficient for an agent to use reliably.

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 each parameter has adequate schema documentation. The description groups parameters (source, title, type) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 'update' and the resource 'diagram', and lists the specific updatable attributes: source (yaml), title, and/or type. This effectively distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like create_diagram.

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 only mentions a prerequisite (API key) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify when not to use it or suggest sibling tools for other tasks.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: reports syntax errors with location, non-fatal lint warnings, and document stats. This sufficiently informs an agent of expected outputs and constraints.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists specific outputs. Every part adds value without 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?

While the description covers the input and general output, it lacks explicit detail on the return format or structure. With no output schema, the agent may need to infer the response shape. Somewhat incomplete.

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?

The single parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 'yaml' parameter. 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 clearly states it validates and lints a YAML document, and specifies what it reports (syntax errors, lint warnings, stats). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like convert_yaml or visualize_yaml.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage is implied from the tool's purpose, but alternatives are not mentioned. The description could benefit from stating when validation is preferable over conversion or visualization.

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

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior. It does mention return types (Mermaid source, optional image) and diagram type support, but omits error handling, prerequisites, or security context. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences (effectively three clauses) that cover purpose, return value, and options. No wasted words, and the most important function is stated first.

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 3 parameters (all with schema descriptions) and no output schema, the description adequately explains return values and diagram types. It does not discuss input validation or size limits, but the schema covers those. Slightly incomplete for a complex use case but sufficient for a simple tool.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds minor value by explaining diagram types ('TREE for hierarchy, FLOW for flowchart') which mirrors the schema enum descriptions. No additional semantics beyond schema.

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 'Turn YAML into a diagram' with specific verb and resource. It mentions diagram types and return values, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like convert_yaml or create_diagram.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for visualizing YAML, but does not mention when not to use or point to sibling tools for other purposes.

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