verify_astah_visual_layout

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.