list_diagram_kinds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or that it is safe. There is no mention of permissions or other behavioral details, though for a simple list query the absence of side effects is reasonably inferred.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and everything stated 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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns ('supported diagram kinds for SysML v1') and there are no missing prerequisites or configuration details. The simplicity of the operation means no further context is needed.

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 there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds no param info because none is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('supported diagram kinds for SysML v1'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_diagrams (which likely lists actual diagrams, not kinds).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that one would call it to obtain the list of diagram kinds, but there is no explicit guidance or mention of when not to use it. For a simple query tool, this is acceptable but not fully explicit.

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