list_diagrams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List diagrams' without stating whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, or what the output structure looks like. It does not mention any side effects or requirements, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 unnecessary words, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple listing operation, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. The structure is straightforward and efficient.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it still fails to clarify the precise meaning of 'owned by' and whether it includes nested elements. The low complexity is offset by the lack of operational detail, making the description incomplete for correct invocation.

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 compensate. It mentions 'owned by a package or element,' which gives some meaning to parent_id, but it does not clarify the expected format (e.g., GUID, name), whether it is a direct or recursive ownership, or if it accepts any other ID types. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw 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' and the resource 'diagrams', with a specific scope: 'owned by a package or element.' This distinguishes it from siblings like list_diagram_kinds and list_diagram_symbols, which have different objects.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or exclusions, such as when to prefer list_diagram_symbols or list_diagram_kinds. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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