list_diagram_symbols

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

The description discloses 'Phase B stub', indicating the tool may be incomplete or non-functional, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but only partially covers it.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a critical status note. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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?

While an output schema exists and covers return values, the description lacks parameter explanation and usage guidance. The tool is simple, but the lack of any note about how diagram_id is used or when to invoke the tool leaves it incomplete. The stub status adds uncertainty without resolution.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the diagram_id parameter, but it does not. It does not mention what format the ID should be, how to obtain it, or any constraints. The description adds no value beyond the parameter name in the schema.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'symbols', and the scope 'in a diagram'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_diagrams, which lists diagrams, and add_symbol/remove_symbol, which modify symbols. The purpose is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools, and the 'Phase B stub' note does not clarify usage context. With many sibling tools operating on diagrams, this is a significant gap.

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