get_diagram_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states what is returned (statistics and overview) and what is not returned (full structure details), giving the agent a clear expectation of the tool's scope. It does not mention error behavior or input validation, but the operation is a simple read-style summary with no side effects.

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 one tightly written sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and immediately clarifies the key limitation. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent can expect: a concise summary with statistics and overview, but not full structure. It could be slightly richer by hinting at what kinds of statistics are included, but given the tool's low complexity, the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100% and the only parameter, xml_content, is adequately documented as 'The Draw.io XML content to summarize'. The description adds no additional detail about expected encoding, size limits, or format nuances, so it provides no value beyond the schema—but the schema already covers the parameter sufficiently.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('Draw.io diagram'), and a concrete deliverable ('concise summary', 'statistics and overview'). It also distinguishes itself from structure-focused tools by explicitly saying it returns content 'without full structure details', which differentiates it from parse_drawio and list_cells.

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 phrase 'without full structure details' implies you should use this tool when you only need an overview, and that you would use parse_drawio or list_cells if you need the full structure. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over the siblings, nor does it name any alternative or exclusion condition.

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