get_diagrams_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, whether it requires certain diagram to be active, or how the path is returned (absolute/relative). The description merely states the action without behavioral context.

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, concise sentence of 9 words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no fluff. Every word 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the return value format, potential conditions (e.g., empty path if no diagrams saved), and platform-specific behavior, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 has no parameters, and the description correctly states the tool's purpose. Since there are no parameters to document, the description is adequate and meets the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and references a clear resource ('the path where BPMN diagrams are saved'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'list_diagrams' (which lists diagram files) or 'open_bpmn' (which opens a diagram), making its purpose immediately clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when the path is needed for file operations vs. other diagram interactions. There are no hints about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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