list_diagrams

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 only states 'List all diagrams' without mentioning important behavioral traits such as pagination, depth of listing (direct children vs. recursive), or any access restrictions. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, and there is no disclosure of how the 'directory' parameter affects the listing.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. While it is minimal, it is appropriately sized for such a simple tool and does not contain fluff.

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?

Although the tool is relatively simple, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not specify the scope of 'all diagrams' (e.g., all in the current workspace, all in a given directory), nor does it mention any return format or potential side effects. The existence of the 'directory' parameter implies the listing can be scoped, but this is not reflected in the description. There is also no output schema to fill the gap.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions: 'format' as file format filter and 'directory' as directory path. Since the schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but it also doesn't need to compensate because the schema already documents the parameters.

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 '列出所有图表' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (all diagrams). It is a direct translation of the tool name, but it still conveys a specific and distinct purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_diagram_info or search_elements, but the scope 'all' implies a listing function.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of preferred contexts, limitations, or exclusions for other tools. The agent is left without information on whether this is the default for browsing diagrams or if search tools should be used for filtering.

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