get_diagram_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: embedded image data is omitted by default because it can be very large, and elements include arrow bindings and appState. It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but the payload-shaping behavior is well communicated.

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?

Three tight paragraphs: purpose first, then the workflow pairing, then the one caveat about files. No filler sentences and the most important routing 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape, and it does: the full elements array and appState, with the notable omission of file blobs by default. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explaining why include_files defaults to false (embedded base64 data can be very large) and by detailing what the returned elements contain. This goes beyond restating the 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read the raw Excalidraw scene of a diagram') and enumerates exactly what is returned (elements array with ids, x/y, width/height, styles, text, arrow bindings, plus appState). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_diagram_summary or list_diagrams.

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?

It states the exact workflow: use this before save_diagram_scene, modify the elements, then write the complete array back. That names the alternative and the condition that selects it, so an agent knows precisely when to pick this tool over its siblings.

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