Preview diagram SVG

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output is SVG markup and that nothing is written to disk, which addresses the primary behavioral question (side effects). However, it doesn't disclose other traits such as whether the in-memory diagram is stored/queryable, any auth/permission needs, or performance/rate-limit considerations. The disclosure is minimal but does cover the most important behavioral aspect.

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?

One compact sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the primary purpose (generate diagram), includes the output format (SVG markup), and adds the key side-effect clarification (no disk write). Ideal conciseness for a tool with a single well-documented parameter.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clarifies output format and side-effect absence. However, with no annotations and the presence of closely-related siblings (generate_diagram, generate_all_fork_diagrams), a bit more context distinguishing this preview mode from full generation would round it out.

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% with a single parameter fully enumerated via enum (six concrete diagram ids). The description adds context that the parameter selects which pre-defined diagram to generate. Since the single parameter is fully documented in the schema with a clear enum, the description needs to add little—and it adequately frames the parameter's role in the generation flow.

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 verb (generate), resource (diagram), and key trait (returns SVG markup, in-memory). The 'does not write to disk' qualifier adds useful scope. It's slightly weaker on distinguishing from siblings like generate_diagram (which presumably does write to disk), but the in-memory note helps differentiate.

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 is for in-memory preview work ('does not write to disk'), suggesting a use case distinct from generation that persists. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like generate_diagram or state when to prefer one over the other. The 'preview' purpose is clear context but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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