get_diagram_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is an informational retrieval operation via 'Get', states what is returned (JSON schema and selection guidance), and implies no side effects. It does not mention error or auth behavior, but for a simple schema-lookup tool the transparency is adequate.

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 filler. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose, and the second provides actionable usage context. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With a single well-documented parameter and an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return fields. It gives the essential workflow context and names the relevant sibling tool. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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 description coverage is 100%, and the diagram_type parameter already includes examples and a pointer to list_diagram_types. The tool description adds context about the parameter's role in constructing a spec but does not substantially extend the schema's parameter documentation. 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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('JSON schema and selection guidance for one diagram type'), and scopes it to a single diagram type. This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like list_diagram_types 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 gives explicit usage direction: call this before passing a spec to create_diagram for a type not yet used. It ties the tool to a concrete workflow and explains the benefit (payload matches on the first attempt), leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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