tia_export_hmi_bundle

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, and the description reinforces this ('one read-only attachment') without contradiction. It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: the output carries hashes and an external-reference inventory, and — most importantly — 'dependency closure is incomplete', a caveat that materially affects how an agent should treat the export. Only return shape/pagination details are absent.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the exported content before the exclusion caveat; no filler wording. The middle content enumeration is long but every item earns its place by defining scope.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description helpfully specifies what the attachment contains. However, for a tool with four required, fully undocumented parameters, the definition leaves an agent unable to determine what to supply for processId, processStartTimeUtc, or how projectPath relates to targetPath.

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?

All four parameters (processId, processStartTimeUtc, projectPath, targetPath) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and fails: it never mentions processId/processStartTimeUtc correlation, path semantics, or whether targetPath must exist or is created. Only the notion of producing an attachment weakly implies a target location.

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?

States a specific verb (export) and enumerates the exact resource set — screens, templates, tag tables, VB scripts, text/graphic lists, project graphics, connections — plus the output form (native XML attachment). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g. tia_export_hmi_native) or stating the 'classic V20' boundary condition that separates it from the other export tools, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 exclusion sentence ('Alarms, recipes and library types are excluded') implies when NOT to use it and points the agent elsewhere for those domains, but no alternative tool is named and there is no positive statement of the selection condition. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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