search_shapes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses coverage (~10,000 stencils, named domains), the fallback behavior to the icon service when stencils are sparse, and that returned style strings can be pasted directly into mxCell style attributes. It omits any mention of rate limits, ordering, or what an empty result looks like, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then usage constraints, then the downstream tip about style strings. It is fairly dense but every sentence earns its place; the catalog list of domains is slightly listy but useful for routing.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing return fields and their use. Combined with the explicit usage boundaries and the fallback behavior, an agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to use the results.

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 both query and limit are fully documented in the schema (including the default and max for limit). The description adds no syntax or formatting guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the draw.io shape library by keywords') and immediately describes what comes back (style strings, dimensions, titles). It clearly carves out a niche distinct from the sibling reference/page tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('ONLY for diagrams that need industry-specific, branded, or pictorial icons') and when not to (flowcharts, UML, ERD, org charts, mind maps, basic-shape requests, or when the user says not to search). It even points to where basic shapes live instead (the XML reference).

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