generar_diagrama_desde_mermaid

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it well: it states the generated artifact is a single-file HTML app, reveals the air-gapped/no-CDN behavior, and lists concrete runtime features like drag-and-drop, zoom, minimap, and layered filters. It does not mention overwrite behavior or validation failures, but the key behavioral contract is clear.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the feature bullets are informative rather than filler. The list is slightly long, but each bullet conveys meaningful behavioral details that help an agent predict output quality and constraints.

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 there is an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers inputs, output format, key interaction features, and the air-gapped constraint. It is slightly incomplete on edge cases like file overwriting, unsupported Mermaid diagram types, or when to prefer a sibling tool, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in the common case.

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 explain the parameters, and it does. It clarifies mermaid_code with an example, specifies that output_path must be an absolute path ending in .html, and explains titulo as the visual title in the top bar. This goes well beyond the bare 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 a concrete verb ('Compila'), a specific resource (Mermaid textual specs), and a definite output (single-file interactive HTML5+SVG+Vanilla JS app). It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools like convertir_archivo_mermaid.

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 intended use case is implied: use this when you have Mermaid DSL and want an interactive, self-contained web diagram. However, there is no explicit guidance about when NOT to use it or which sibling tool should be chosen instead, such as convertir_archivo_mermaid.

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