read_diagram

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool reads and parses the file and returns a structured overview, making the read-only nature and primary output behavior evident. It does not detail error handling or edge cases, but for a simple read operation, the transparency is good.

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, front-loaded sentence that begins with the action verb and immediately specifies the resource and return contents. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description provides a clear high-level summary of the return value ('overview of all pages, nodes, and edges') despite lacking an output schema. For a read-only tool with one well-defined parameter, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, though more granular return-field details could be added.

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 sole parameter filePath is fully described in the schema ('Path to the .drawio file'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description reinforces this by mentioning the .drawio file format. Since the schema handles the parameter semantics, the description adds no extra parameter detail, warranting the baseline score.

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 is specific and action-oriented: 'Read and parse a draw.io diagram file' clearly identifies verb and resource, and 'returning a structured overview of all pages, nodes (shapes), and edges (connections)' defines the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_diagram, add_node, or screenshot_diagram, which serve different purposes.

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 use when a structured overview of a diagram's content is needed, but it offers no explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' guidance. It does not mention exclusions, such as preferring screenshot_diagram for visual output or check_layout for layout analysis, so the usage context is only implied.

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