Inspect draw.io diagram

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context on top: it reads only the first page of a multi-page file and returns a specific subset of diagram information. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 entire description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and scope and includes no filler. Every word in the sentence contributes to what the tool does and what it returns.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the annotations plus description give a good high-level picture: read first page, return diagram elements, safe to call. However, the complete lack of input_path documentation and the absence of explicit alternative routing leaves enough of a gap that the description is merely adequate rather than fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining input_path. It never explicitly states what input_path should contain, what path formats are supported, or that it must refer to an existing draw.io XML file. The parameter name is self-descriptive to a degree, but no real semantic guidance is provided.

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 action ('Read'), a resource ('first page of a draw.io XML file'), and concrete outputs ('nodes, edges, labels, and geometry'). This clearly distinguishes inspect_diagram from the create/update/validate siblings, which all perform different operations.

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 read semantics strongly imply that this tool is for inspecting an existing draw.io file rather than creating or modifying one. However, it never explicitly says when to choose it over validate_diagram or server_info, nor does it give set exclusions.

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