explain_diagram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Explain ... for a text-only agent'; it does not mention multi-image handling, label semantics, whether the explanation is a textual narrative, or any limitations.

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 verb and subject, and every word earns its place. No redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but adequate for a moderately complex vision tool. It misses details about return format and multi-image behavior, which are important given the 'images' parameter.

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 detailed descriptions for image, images, prompt, and mimeType, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the general diagram context.

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 ('Explain') and enumerates concrete resource types (architecture diagrams, flowcharts, sequence diagrams, ERDs, UML, whiteboards), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like describe_image or read_chart. The phrase 'for a text-only agent' adds audience specificity.

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 appropriate use by listing diagram categories and noting the tool is for a text-only agent, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it. Still, the context is reasonably clear.

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