get_type_vocabulary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read operation via 'Return' and describes the output content. It does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior or error handling, but 'Return' strongly implies a safe query. It adds context about the data format (px @96dpi) which is beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary function and output details; the second gives a clear usage directive. Ideal length and structure.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately specifies what is returned (each kind's Visio master, size, styling) and why (build nodes with valid kind values). It could mention behavior on invalid diagram types or explicitly confirm read-only status, but these are minor gaps.

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 100%: diagram_type is described as 'Diagram type key, e.g. 'activity' or 'flowchart'.' The description reinforces this with 'for one diagram type' and 'for the chosen type,' but adds no new parameter-level details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Return') and the resource ('the full element vocabulary for one diagram type'), and enumerates the specific content (Visio master, default size, default styling). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_diagram_types by focusing on the vocabulary of a single type rather than the list of types.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use this to build nodes with valid kind values for the chosen type.' It explains when to call it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. This is clear context without exclusions.

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