draw_class_diagram

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

With no annotations, the description discloses output format (.drawio file) and compatibility (opens in draw.io). However, it does not mention any behavioral traits like file creation behavior, permissions, or side effects, leaving gaps for a creation tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. First sentence states purpose and output. Second sentence lists capabilities. Front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. Missing details on relationship types, stereotype definitions, attribute syntax, error handling, and file behavior (overwrite, etc.). Schema coverage is 0%, so description carries the burden but falls short.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It only provides a high-level list of accepted elements (classes, attributes, methods, relationships) without explaining structure, defaults, or constraints. Nested objects (e.g., methods with params, visibility) are undocumented.

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 creates a UML class diagram as a .drawio file, using specific verbs and resources. It lists accepted elements (attributes, methods, stereotypes, relationships) and distinguishes it from sibling tools for other diagram types.

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 implies use for class diagram creation but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., other diagram types). Context from sibling names provides differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

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