workflow_to_diagram

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

The description discloses the output format but does not mention side effects, error handling, input size limits, or permissions needed. With no annotations, more detail on behavioral traits (e.g., pure conversion, no side effects) would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise (two sentences), front-loads the purpose, and covers essential input/output without any fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return value well but omits explanation of source_path vs source_text and direction. It is slightly incomplete given the parameter count, though the tool's simplicity partially mitigates this.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the tool accepts DSL or JSON but does not map these to parameters (source_text vs source_path, source_type). Direction and source_path are not explained. The description adds partial meaning but insufficiently clarifies all four parameters.

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 it converts a workflow spec into a Mermaid flowchart and specifies input formats (DSL or JSON) and output (Mermaid source with fenced block). It distinguishes from sibling tools through specific input/output details, though explicit differentiation from 'render_workflow' is missing.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., render_workflow) or when not to use it. The description lacks context about prerequisites or trade-offs, leaving the agent to infer usage without direction.

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