export_diagram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's function as 'export diagram to specified format' without revealing what the action entails, such as whether it triggers a download, requires permissions, or returns a URL. This is a near-tautology and fails to disclose any meaningful behavioral traits beyond the name.

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, focused sentence with no redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word earns its place. This is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has a nested options object and no output schema, yet the description provides no information about return values, how options affect the export, or any limitations. The one-line description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full behavior and expected results, especially considering the complexity of the options parameter and the absence of annotations.

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 description coverage is 100% for the top-level parameters (diagram_id, format, options), and the format parameter has an explicit enum. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline is 3 given the high schema coverage. Nested option fields (scale, width, height, transparent) lack description, but the description does not compensate for this.

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 '导出图表为指定格式' (Export diagram to specified format) clearly states the action (export) and resource (diagram), and explicitly mentions the format parameter. It is distinct from sibling tools like save_diagram, which suggests saving in the app rather than exporting to an external file.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied by the tool's name and the export action, but there is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with save_diagram or other related tools. This makes the guidance minimal and mostly implicit.

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