List the diagram kinds

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, but the description adds traits the annotations cannot express: no arguments, static and local with no I/O, ~4 KB payload, identical answer every call, and a fixed ordering that groups related kinds. This is meaningful operational context for an agent sizing up the call.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and immediately followed by the ordering instruction. The parenthetical grouping detail and size estimate are compact and each sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-structure explanation is unnecessary; the description still characterizes the payload (36 values, one-line purposes). For a zero-argument, deterministic lookup tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'No arguments,' which is a small but useful reinforcement of the empty schema rather than redundant filler.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it enumerates the complete set of 36 `kind` values with a one-line purpose each. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_example, which it names as the follow-up step rather than a competitor.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call it ('Call it first, before choosing a kind') and why ('several kinds are not box-and-arrow diagrams and are easy to miss'), then names the next tool in the workflow ('then `get_example` for a starting document'). No inference required.

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