current

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds nothing beyond the name about behavior—it doesn't mention output format, scope, or any side effects. With strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate because it adds minimal context beyond structured data.

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?

A single, concise sentence with no wasted words. The core action and target are front-loaded. Perfectly sized for a zero-parameter read tool.

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?

The tool has an output schema that presumably defines the return structure, so that gap is covered. However, the description doesn't clarify what 'information' means in practice—whether it returns the full diagram model, just properties, or a summary. Given the broad sibling set of read-like tools (list_elements, get_element, export), a slightly more explicit scope would make it self-contained. It's minimally complete but leaves ambiguity.

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 schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters; it correctly avoids redundant parameter details.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a resource ('current diagram'), but 'information' is vague—it doesn't specify whether this returns metadata, elements, or both. It's distinguishable from get_element (which targets a specific element) but not precisely from list_elements or export. The purpose is understandable but under-specified.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_elements, get_element, or export. It does not state what kind of 'information' it returns or when a caller should prefer this over sibling read operations. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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