xml_xml_attrs

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output format (list of dicts) and input parameters, but does not cover edge cases (e.g., tag not found, namespaces, performance). It is adequate but minimal.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the '[xml]' prefix. No wasted words, but could slightly expand on critical details without becoming verbose.

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?

Although an output schema is indicated, the description lacks details about the output structure beyond 'list of dicts'. Given the many sibling XML tools, more context (e.g., how attributes are structured, behavior on invalid input) would improve completeness.

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 description coverage (0%) for its two parameters. The description does not explain the expected format of xml_string (e.g., well-formed XML string) or whether tag is case-sensitive. It adds minimal value beyond the schema property names.

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 returns attributes of all elements with a given tag name as a list of dicts. It specifies the verb 'return', the resource 'attributes', and the condition 'of all elements with a given tag name', distinguishing it from sibling tools like xml_find (returns elements) or xml_tags (returns tag names).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xml_xml_extract, xml_xml_findall, or xml_xml_to_dict. There are no explicit context or exclusion statements to help an agent decide.

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