ads_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the generated csharp output is for (Beckhoff.TwinCAT.Ads ReadAny/WriteAny), but says nothing about the out_path parameter, which implies filesystem write behavior not reflected in the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause, then compresses format semantics into a dense but readable single passage. No filler sentences, though the run-on format list is slightly hard to parse.

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 not be described. However, for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, leaving out_path and namespace undocumented leaves the definition short of what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must carry the full parameter burden. It richly documents fmt (all four values), types, and prefix, but leaves out_path and namespace completely unexplained — two of five parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('Generate code from the runtime') and immediately enumerates the four output formats, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like ads_types, ads_list_symbols, and rec_export. An agent can tell what this produces without opening the schema.

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 explains what each fmt produces but never says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as ads_read, ads_types, or xae_plcopen_export, nor what preconditions (e.g. a live ADS connection) apply. Guidance is entirely format-selection, not usage selection.

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