open_diagram

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), providing no safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context: it does not state whether opening a diagram loads it into a working session, replaces the current diagram, validates the XML, or has side effects. The agent is left guessing about state changes and failure modes.

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, well-formed sentence with no wasted words, which is praiseworthy. However, it is under-specified given the tool's relevance to diagram editing workflows, and the lack of detail makes it feel more like a minimal definition than a helpful guide.

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 tool has an output schema, but the description fails to explain important contextual aspects: what 'open' does to the current workspace, how the 'diagram' parameter is used, and how this tool fits among list_diagrams, describe_diagram, and the editing tools. The minimal description is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional assumptions.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. While 'path' is somewhat self-explanatory by name, the optional 'diagram' parameter is completely undefined and its purpose (e.g., inline XML content) is unclear. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema 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 opens an existing uncompressed .drawio or XML diagram, specifying the resource and action. However, it does not differentiate 'open' from sibling tools like describe_diagram, which may also read a diagram, so the purpose is clear but not fully distinguished.

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 open_diagram versus alternatives such as describe_diagram or load_database_schema. The description only mentions 'existing' diagrams, implying the file must already exist, but gives no context about prerequisites, workflow position, or exclusions.

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