ea_list_diagrams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the return structure (each entry carries diagramId, name, type, packagePath, eaGuid), which is not present in annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context about the output format.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the action and filters, the second defines the result fields. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no superfluous words, making it very 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?

This is a simple list operation with no required parameters and a well-defined output structure described in the text. The schema covers all parameters, annotations cover safety, and the description specifies return fields. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing exactly what each result contains, so nothing essential is missing.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (limit, packageId, nameContains). The description's mention of 'optionally filtered by package and/or name substring' adds little beyond the schema. It does not provide additional syntax, formats, or examples, so it only marginally supplements the 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 tool lists diagrams in the model, with optional filters for package and name substring. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ea_list_elements (elements) and ea_get_diagram_elements (elements within a diagram) by focusing on diagrams specifically.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this when you need to enumerate diagrams' or contrast with ea_search or ea_get_diagram_elements. The filtering options imply use cases, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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