validate_diagram

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

No annotations are provided, and the description uses 'audit' which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state side effects, return values, or whether the file is modified. The behavior is reasonably clear but not fully transparent.

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 with no redundant words. It directly and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 simple validation tool, the description covers the main purpose, but it omits details such as whether the tool returns a report, throws exceptions, or writes output. Given the lack of an output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 only parameter 'input_path' is documented in the schema as a string, but the description does not explicitly link it to the .drawio file path. While this is a reasonable inference from the description, the description adds minimal semantic detail beyond the schema itself.

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 a specific verb ('audit') and a specific resource ('.drawio diagram file') and enumerates the exact checks performed ('node collisions and text boundary overflows'). This fully conveys what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'analyze_diagram' or 'resolve_diagram_collisions'. There is no guidance on conditions that would make this tool preferable over others, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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