Generate Code Diagram

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses important behaviors: imageUrl hides rows, iconUrl preserves rows, parent nodes should omit imageUrl. This covers rendering trade-offs. However, it doesn't mention error handling or return structure, but for a diagram tool, these are secondary. The behavioral context added is valuable and not in schema.

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?

Three sentences, each contributing unique information: purpose, usage distinction, and behavioral note. No filler. Front-loaded with main purpose, resulting in high information density.

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 nested objects and 2 top-level parameters with 100% schema coverage. No output schema. Description covers key behavioral differentiators (image vs icon, parent nodes) and usage context. It doesn't explain return format, but that's acceptable given schema coverage. Overall, adequate for agent to use correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds beyond schema: explaining the distinction between imageUrl and iconUrl, guidance for parent nodes, and direction defaults. This enriches parameter understanding without repeating schema fields.

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 'Code-level or detailed component diagrams with key-value rows plus optional icons/images', which specifies the verb (generate) and resource (code diagram) and distinguishes it from generateSystemDiagram. It explicitly says 'For high-level system visuals with mostly image nodes, use generateSystemDiagram', providing clear sibling differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Code-level or detailed component diagrams' and when-not: 'For high-level system visuals with mostly image nodes, use generateSystemDiagram'. It also gives a behavioral note about imageUrl vs iconUrl, which helps the agent decide based on needs.

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