parse_drawio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that the operation is read-only and non-destructive via the verb 'Parse,' and it discloses the return payload ('cells, edges, layers, and statistics'). However, it does not address error behavior for malformed XML, size limits, or what happens when required elements are absent.

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 with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence lists the concrete output items, giving an agent actionable information in the fewest possible words.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the input and enumerates the return categories. It lacks error-handling details and sibling differentiation, but those gaps are minor relative to the tool's low complexity, and the lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the explicit return enumeration.

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 single parameter xml_content is already documented in the schema. The description's use of 'Draw.io XML' reinforces the parameter's meaning but adds no new semantic detail such as expected encoding, document size limits, or accepted XML variants. The baseline 3 applies since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Parse'), a resource ('Draw.io XML'), and the extracted output ('cells, edges, layers, and statistics'). This distinguishes it from validate_drawio, list_cells, and find_cell, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from analyze_drawio or get_diagram_summary, which could plausibly produce the same 'statistics' and structural output.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description never mentions analyze_drawio, validate_drawio, or get_diagram_summary, so an agent has no basis for deciding whether parsing, validating, analyzing, or summarizing is the right call for a given task.

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