export_diagram

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion to ASCII text but does not mention whether the original file is modified, how output is delivered (e.g., returned string versus file), or any side effects. This lack of detail goes beyond minimal transparency.

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 that is front-loaded with the purpose and free of filler content. Every word contributes to defining the tool's function, making it an excellent example of concise, well-structured documentation.

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 simple tool with full schema coverage, the description gives a clear overview. However, it does not specify the output mechanism (e.g., whether the text is returned or written to a file) or clarify the tool's effect on the original file. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, this leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 input schema already provides thorough descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. The description's mention of 'ASCII text' gives context that unicode and trimWhitespace are relevant, but the schema already explains them, so the description adds no incremental value here.

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 clearly states a specific action (export) on a specific resource (Monodraw diagram) with a specific output format (plain ASCII text). It distinguishes from the sibling export_diagram_json by explicitly mentioning the target format, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies that this tool is for producing plain ASCII text output, especially in contrast to export_diagram_json for JSON output. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions, leaving usage as implied rather than explicit.

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