encode_plantuml

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only states the basic function. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as encoding format, error handling, performance, or security aspects (e.g., input validation), leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely transforms data.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 simple input schema (1 parameter, 100% coverage) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration context, which are important for a tool that encodes data for URLs.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the single parameter. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 action ('Encode') and the resource ('PlantUML code'), specifying it's for URL usage. It distinguishes from siblings like 'decode_plantuml' (reverse operation) and 'generate_plantuml_diagram' (creation), but doesn't explicitly contrast them in the description.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning 'for URL usage', implying use when embedding PlantUML in URLs. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g., when to use vs. generate_plantuml_diagram), offering no detailed context for selection.

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