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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key behaviors: automatic layout when x/y are omitted, temporary PNG export for visual inspection, and preservation of only the final .asta file. It does not mention overwrite behavior or return format, but the disclosed behaviors are valuable and non-contradictory.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's role and purpose, and each sentence conveys essential information: what the tool does, default diagram count, and layout/output behavior. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the complex schema with nested objects and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient high-level guidance: how to use the tool (interpret, convert, create), default behavior, and what happens with layout and files. It could have explicitly directed agents to get_astah_capabilities for valid kinds, but the schema already does this, so the completeness is adequate.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all parameters including nested properties. The description adds some context about x/y omission and the default single diagram, but these are already present in the schema (e.g., 'Omitir para layout automático' and 'Use um único item, salvo solicitação explícita por mais diagramas'). Therefore, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline of 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'crie diagramas nativos no Astah' (create native diagrams in Astah), using a specific verb and resource. It also frames itself as 'Ferramenta principal e genérica' (main and generic tool), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_astah_visual_layout and get_astah_capabilities.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Depois de interpretar o pedido ou enunciado escrito pelo usuário, converta-o para esta especificação e crie diagramas' (after interpreting the user's request, convert it to this specification and create diagrams). It also gives explicit guidance on diagram count: 'Crie somente um diagrama por padrão; use vários apenas quando o usuário ou o enunciado os pedir explicitamente.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, relying on the 'main tool' framing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the temporary folder removal after export, which is a notable side effect. However, it doesn't mention other behaviors like overwrite handling, error cases, or permissions, leaving gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes all key workflow steps (create, export, return, cleanup) without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is moderately complex (create, export, inspect, delete), and while the description explains the workflow, it lacks specifics about how images are returned, prerequisites, or failure behavior. Given no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete for a tool of this scope.

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 schema already covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (outputPath and overwrite). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It doesn't compensate for the un-described layoutProfile parameter, but this is not a major gap.

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 tool creates a new Astah project, exports diagrams to a temporary folder, and returns images for visual inspection. This is a specific workflow that distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'create_astah_model', though it doesn't explicitly mention the 'meteorological station' specialization from the name.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description implies a use case (generating images for visual inspection) but does not reference any sibling tools or state exclusions.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly states the output scope (exact types, known limitations) and implicitly indicates a read-only operation. It does not mention side effects or return formatting, but for a capability listing this is sufficient.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and provides key content details without any redundancy or filler.

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 fully covers what can be expected: it names the categories of information (diagrams, elements, relationships) and the inclusion of known limitations. With no parameters and no output schema, this is complete for a discovery tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description naturally emphasizes what the tool returns rather than inputs, which is appropriate and adds no confusing parameter cues.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and identifies the resource (diagram types, elements, relationships, limitations). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on capability discovery rather than creation or validation.

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 usage context is implied: one would call this to learn what the server can create before using create tools. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or comparison with alternatives, so it relies on the user to infer.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns rules but does not mention whether it is read-only, whether it has side effects, what the output format is, or any potential limitations. The phrase 'aplicadas pelo servidor' adds minimal context but does not meaningfully disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious retrieval action.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and clearly states the resource. It contains no unnecessary words or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured, achieving maximum efficiency for the information it conveys.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally sufficient to understand its basic purpose. However, it lacks detail about the return value's format or content, which would be helpful since no output schema is provided. The description does not explain what 'readability and layout rules' entail or how they might be structured, leaving the agent to guess. For a no-arg getter, this is adequate but not complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object (schema description coverage is 100%). Since there are no parameters to describe, the description does not need to provide parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retorna' (Returns) and clearly identifies the resource as 'as regras de legibilidade e disposição aplicadas pelo servidor' (readability and layout rules applied by the server). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'verify_astah_visual_layout' (which verifies layout) and 'get_astah_capabilities' (which returns capabilities), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, related tools, or scenarios where this tool would be preferred. Given the existence of sibling tools such as 'verify_astah_visual_layout' and 'get_astah_capabilities', some usage guidance would be helpful but is absent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'sem alterar projetos' (without altering projects), which discloses non-destructive behavior. However, it does not describe return values, failure modes, or any other behavioral details such as network calls or side effects.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a key safety note ('sem alterar projetos'). Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a zero-parameter validation tool, the description adequately outlines what is validated and that it is non-destructive. However, without an output schema, it does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, diagnostic details), which is a notable gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides all necessary information. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; baseline of 4 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 states the tool validates the Astah environment installation, API, exporter, and compilation. The verb 'Valida' (validates) combined with the specific resource distinguishes this from sibling tools that create models or verify layout.

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 usage for checking the environment before doing other operations, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or expected workflows.

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

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 key behaviors: creating temporary files, running automated checks, returning images, and removing temporary files afterward. It omits details like failure modes or return format, but the main workflow is transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that lists the full workflow in chronological order. It is concise, front-loaded with the main action, and every clause adds value without 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?

Given the tool's multi-step behavior and absence of an output schema, the description explains the main steps and what is returned (images). It is slightly vague about the nature of the automatic checks and how images are returned, but it is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to invoke it.

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 schema already covers the only parameter (projectPath) with a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond referencing the existing project, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 states the tool's function: it exports diagrams from an existing Astah project, runs automatic checks, returns images for mandatory visual comparison, and cleans up temporary files. This detailed process distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_astah_layout_guidelines or validate_astah_environment, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context: it applies to an existing Astah project ("projeto Astah existente") and is for mandatory visual comparison. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is clear enough to select this tool over siblings.

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