generate_plantuml_diagram

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it performs automatic syntax validation, returns embeddable image URLs or structured error details for auto-fix, and optionally saves to a local file with directory restrictions. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling specifics.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key features in the first sentence, followed by additional details in a structured manner. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete, covering the main functionality, validation, outputs, and optional file saving. However, it could benefit from more details on error handling or response formats to fully compensate for the lack of output schema.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'automatic syntax validation' for plantuml_code and 'Optionally saves the diagram to a local file' for output_path, but does not provide additional semantic context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Generate a PlantUML diagram') and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'automatic syntax validation and error reporting for auto-fix workflows' and 'Returns embeddable image URLs for valid diagrams or structured error details for invalid syntax that can be automatically corrected.' This goes beyond just restating the name and differentiates from decode_plantuml and encode_plantuml.

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 context for when to use this tool ('Generate a PlantUML diagram with automatic syntax validation and error reporting for auto-fix workflows'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the sibling tools. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit about tool selection.

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