draw_usecase_diagram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It adequately explains the output format (.drawio), notations used, and supported relationships, but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It lists key features in a bullet-like style without excessive words. However, it could be slightly more structured to group related information.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides a good overview but lacks details on parameter usage (e.g., what 'id' is for, how 'systemBoundary.include' works). It is somewhat complete but leaves gaps for an agent to figure out.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description lists some parameters (actors, use cases, system boundaries, relationships) but does not explain all 8 parameters in detail. For example, 'title' and 'systemBoundary.include' are not mentioned. The description adds some context but is insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 use case diagram as a .drawio file, specifies proper UML notation, and distinguishes from sibling tools (other draw_* diagram tools and generate_usecase_specification) by focusing on use case diagrams and their elements.

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 when to use the tool (to create a use case diagram) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. The context from sibling tool names helps but the description itself lacks clear usage guidelines.

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