Diagram language reference

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context; it does by specifying the returned content (shapes, options, worked example). It doesn't describe output format or size, but that is not a contradiction and the safety profile is already covered.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Every component earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only reference tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource and its contents. It could clarify the output representation (e.g., Markdown vs plain text), but the annotations and simple call contract make this a minor 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden; the description's content reference (shapes, options, example) indirectly explains what a caller would receive, but no parameter-specific meaning is needed. Baseline 4 applies.

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 ('Return') and resource ('full diagram-as-code language reference'), and enumerates contents (shapes, options, worked example). The reference nature clearly separates it from sibling tools that render, validate, or preview diagrams.

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 when-to-use or exclusion of siblings, but the purpose is self-evident: call when the agent needs the language reference rather than operating on a diagram. The description implies usage but does not name alternatives or conditions.

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