export_diagram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It mentions using a desktop CLI, which hints at an external dependency, but does not describe side effects, safety, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and formats. Every word contributes to the core purpose with no waste.

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?

For a tool with four parameters and an output schema, the description is sparse. It does not mention the output file behavior, page selection, or any constraints. While an output schema exists, it is not enough to make this description complete for effective agent use.

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 only mentions output formats. It does not explain input_path, output_path, format, or page_index beyond what the schema already shows. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics and fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action (export), the input resource (.drawio XML diagram), and the output formats (PNG, SVG, PDF, JPEG). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that generate, patch, or parse diagrams.

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 this tool is for converting diagrams to images, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. It is clear enough for a single-purpose tool but lacks explicit routing.

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