drawio_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose what is extracted and that the XML is decoded. However, 'Read' only implicitly signals a non-mutating operation, and it says nothing about error behavior for malformed/non-drawio files or whether PNG/SVG/PDF inputs are rejected.

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?

A short domain tag followed by one front-loaded sentence; the verb and resource come before the return-value enumeration. The bracket tag is slightly verbose, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and a sibling set_output_folder, this is nearly complete: purpose and returned content are covered. The only real gap is path resolution context, plus the bracket tag's 'PNG/SVG/PDF' phrasing, which slightly muddies whether those formats are valid inputs to a read.

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 lone 'path' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially does by naming the accepted file types (.drawio/.xml), but it adds no detail on whether the path is absolute, relative, or resolved under the configured output folder.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('.drawio/.xml file') and even enumerates what it extracts (pages, vertex/edge counts, labels, decoded mxGraphModel XML). It is clearly distinguishable from drawio_create_diagram and drawio_flowchart, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with drawio_codec, which could plausibly overlap on decoding.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The agent must infer from the verb that this is the inspection path rather than the creation path, and nothing says what to do instead when a file is a PNG/SVG/PDF.

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