Navigate TIA Portal to Object

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description adds real value by explaining that navigation is performed through the official ShowInEditor API and by explicitly disclaiming line-level navigation from ReferenceLocation metadata. It still omits what happens when the object is not found or when the UI is busy, but the key behavioral caveat is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action type, then the resolution scope, then the guarantee boundary. No filler, though the final sentence's phrasing ('never claimed from ReferenceLocation metadata') is dense and slightly indirect.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the mechanism plus caveat are stated. Against 16 parameters at 0% coverage and no explicit sibling routing, however, the definition leaves an agent guessing about most inputs and about when this tool is preferable to the query/get-context siblings.

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 0% across 16 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: it names the block/type/tag-table kinds but leaves confirmNavigation, processId, softwarePath, officialIdentifier, referenceLocation semantics, networkLabel, allowUiAutomationNetworkFallback, maxDepth/maxNodes and timeoutMs unexplained. It also lists only PlcBlock, PlcType and PlcTagTable while the schema enum additionally permits 'plc_tag', an inconsistency an agent must resolve on its own.

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 specific action ('Explicit UI navigation action'), a specific scope ('one object in the exact current PID/project') and the underlying mechanism ('invokes only the official ShowInEditor API'). That distinguishes it from query-style siblings such as tia_query_live_project or tia_get_current_block, but it never names an alternative outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'explicit UI navigation' suggests calling it when the agent wants the IDE to focus an object rather than to read data, and the note that network/line navigation is never claimed sets a boundary on expectations. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no statement of what to call instead for plain lookups.

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