Edtb Interface Info

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 implies a read-only query by describing 'current' interface state, but it never explicitly states that no changes are made, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or error behavior.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The key information about what is reported is front-loaded, though the terseness leaves room for more useful context.

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 do not need to be explained, but the description omits essential parameter semantics and usage guidance. For a tool with a required subsystemFQN and an optional projectPath, this level of description is not sufficient for confident 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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. The required subsystemFQN and optional projectPath are completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their roles and formats.

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 identifies the resource—commands from CommandInterface.xml—and the specific aspects shown: visibility, placement, and order. Although it lacks an explicit verb, the title 'Info' and the content make the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from mutation-oriented siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edtb_interface_edit or other info tools. The description only states what the tool reports, not the conditions or context in which it should be selected.

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