list_cells

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool is read-only in nature ('List', 'Returns') and what output to expect, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior around malformed XML, how system cells are treated beyond the schema default, or any limitations on result size or structure.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core action and output contract are front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description states the input (implicitly the diagram XML), the scope of cells returned, and the output fields. It is nearly complete for a simple listing tool; the main gap is usage routing among siblings and error behavior, which are minor for this operation.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description does not add additional meaning about xml_content or include_system_cells beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the operation as listing all cells in a Draw.io diagram, specifies that this includes shapes and connections, and states the returned fields (IDs, types, labels, connections). This makes the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like validate_drawio, parse_drawio, and find_cell.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_cell or get_diagram_summary. It implies a broad listing use case but does not state when a more targeted or analytical sibling would be preferable.

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