list_diagrams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses scope (workspace-wide) and the returned fields (id, title, last updated timestamp), signaling a safe read, but says nothing about pagination, result caps, ordering, or failure behavior for an invalid workspace_id.

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 short sentences with zero waste: the action and scope come first, then the return contents. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the main gap it needed to close for a simple one-parameter list tool. It omits pagination and empty-result behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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 workspace_id parameter is 100% documented in the schema, including its UUID format, so the description needs to add little. It only reiterates the workspace scoping and contributes no extra syntax or constraint detail, matching the baseline for full 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all diagrams') plus scope ('in a workspace'), which cleanly separates it from write siblings like create_diagram or delete_diagram. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb and the name; there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_diagram_summary, get_diagram_scene, or list_folders, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. Adequate but leaves alternatives to inference.

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