get_structure_diagram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries responsibility for disclosing behavior. The verb 'Generate' implies a read-only operation, and the output is described as a Mermaid.js diagram, but no details are given about potential side effects, permissions, or edge cases. With no annotations, this is minimal but not misleading.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the tool's purpose and output format with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly concise while retaining key information.

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 is simple with one parameter, a high-coverage schema, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The only gap is the lack of explicit usage alternatives, but given the self-explanatory nature of generating a structural diagram, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter, dataflow_id, fully described including an example and a note about a previous parameter name. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, so it relies entirely on the schema, which is sufficient at the baseline level.

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 'Generate' and clearly identifies the resource as a Mermaid.js diagram showing dataset dimensions, codelists, and hierarchies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_data or get_constraints, which retrieve raw data or constraints rather than a structural diagram.

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 implies usage when a visual structural overview of a dataset is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_constraints or get_concepts. There is no when-not guidance or explicit mention of prerequisites, though the schema hints that dataflow_id comes from discover_dataflows.

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