understand_diagram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'interpret,' offering no information about side effects, required permissions, or output nature. This is severely insufficient for safe invocation.

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, efficient but under-specified. It lacks crucial details that would warrant a longer description, so it is not excessively verbose, but its brevity compromises completeness. A 3 reflects adequate conciseness with room for improvement.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of similar siblings, the description fails to provide enough context for correct usage. It omits return behavior, typical use cases, and differentiation from closely related tools, making it 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 schema description covers the single parameter 'image_path' at 100%, but the tool description adds no additional context about accepted formats, file size limits, or path conventions. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description provides no extra value beyond 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 specifies 'interpret a diagram image file,' which narrows the scope to diagrams, distinguishing it from siblings like analyze_chart or analyze_image. However, 'interpret' is vague and does not clarify the tool's exact function, such as extracting text, recognizing shapes, or providing a semantic summary.

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 provides no usage guidance, such as when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_chart or analyze_image. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names alone.

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