fluig_process_diagram_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key behavioral variable the schema omits: the return modality flips between inline SVG and a written file depending on destino. It is silent on authentication requirements, error behavior, and diagram size limits, which is the remaining gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the sibling relationship and the destino rule. The middle sentence is partly motivational rationale rather than operational instruction, but it doubles as usage guidance.

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 four-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is fetched, the routing to the write sibling, and the two possible output destinations. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns the extra point by explaining the semantic consequence of omitting destino (inline SVG return), which the schema's "opcional" wording does not spell out.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Baixa o SVG do diagrama publicado") and explicitly names the sibling it complements, fluig_process_diagram_set, so an agent can tell the read from the write. It does not, however, distinguish itself from other diagram/image-adjacent siblings such as fluig_process_image or fluig_process_export_xml.

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?

Gives a clear use context (read the original before overwriting via fluig_process_diagram_set) and a decision rule for the optional parameter: supply destino to write a file, omit it to get the SVG inline. No explicit "when not to use" or exclusions are offered, which keeps it just below the top band.

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