analyze_diagram

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what it extracts but does not mention side effects (though analysis likely implies read-only), return format, error conditions, or any limitations. The description gives some insight but falls short of full transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the primary function and key outputs without wasting words.

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?

While the description lists expected outputs, it omits essential context such as input path format, any prerequisites or constraints, and how the results are returned. The output schema exists but is not referenced, and the 0% parameter schema coverage compounds the incompleteness. An agent would need additional information to use the tool reliably.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for its only parameter 'input_path', and the description does not mention or explain this parameter at all. The agent is left to guess what input_path should refer to (file path, diagram ID, etc.). This is a critical gap in a single-parameter tool.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb 'Analyze' and resource 'diagram topology', and enumerates concrete outputs (entry points, sinks, feedback cycles, bottlenecks, critical execution paths). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on generation, editing, or conversion.

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?

Usage context is implied through the verb 'analyze' and the nature of outputs, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar analysis-oriented siblings like parse_diagram or validate_diagram. No when-not conditions are provided.

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