ingest_diagram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the result is stored but omits details on idempotency, overwrite behavior, size limits, rate limits, or permission requirements. The description lacks transparency about side effects and constraints.

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 well-structured with a concise summary followed by parameter details. It is appropriately sized, though some repetition could be trimmed. The use of bullet points for arguments is clear.

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?

The description covers inputs, supported formats, and output type, but lacks details on error handling, behavior with unsupported formats, and limits. It references that output is same as 'remember_fragment', partially leveraging the existing output schema. More context on edge cases would improve completeness.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explains each parameter: diagram_text includes examples of accepted formats, source provides a usage example, and diagram_type lists valid values including 'auto' as default. This adds significant meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 tool's purpose: 'Ingest an architecture or flow diagram into the context memory.' It specifies supported formats and the outcome (structured fragment stored and retrievable), distinguishing it from related tools like 'ingest_diff' and 'remember_fragment'.

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 provide explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions that warrant use or cases where other tools (e.g., 'remember_fragment' for arbitrary text) would be more appropriate.

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