build_diagram

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

It discloses that the tool builds a diagram with ELK layout/layers/legend and returns paths plus a PNG, which is useful without annotations. However, it does not mention side effects such as writing files to out_dir, overwriting behavior, or failure modes, so the behavioral burden is only partially met.

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 one compact sentence with no filler; the verb, key diagram features, and return value are all front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the information it provides.

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?

Given a required free-form spec, optional formats/out_dir, no output schema, and several sibling build/lint/render tools, this short description leaves too much unspecified for correct invocation. It provides the return shape but not enough context to construct a valid spec or choose among siblings.

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 0% and the description does not explain the required spec object, formats choices, out_dir, or name. The only implicit hint is PNG as an output format, which does not compensate for the completely undocumented 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 uses a specific verb ('Construye') with the diagram resource and names concrete traits (ELK layout, layers, legend, PNG output), so an agent can tell it apart from search/lint/doctor tools. However, it does not differentiate from sibling builders like build_from_mermaid or build_from_example.

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 guidance is given for when to choose this tool over build_from_mermaid, build_from_example, or lint_diagram/render. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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