Edtb Mxl Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose headless, no-screenshot behavior and implies a read-only informational operation, but it does not state side effects, required access, or what happens when inputs are invalid.

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 short and contains no filler, which is good. However, 'без скриншота' and 'headless' are somewhat redundant, and the description is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an actionable sentence.

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?

With three opaque parameters, no usage guidance, and no sibling differentiation, the description is only minimally complete. An output schema exists, but it does not compensate for missing parameter semantics or selection criteria.

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 explain objectName, templateName, or projectPath at all. The parameters remain opaque, so an agent has no semantic help beyond the raw names and types.

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 that the tool returns structural information about a layout from a file, and adds a distinguishing qualifier: no screenshot, headless. This separates it from compile/decompile siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return'.

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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as edtb_mxl_compile, edtb_mxl_decompile, or edtb_form_info. The 'headless' and 'no screenshot' hints imply a use case, but no alternative tools or exclusion conditions are named.

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