xae_plcopen_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with a safe, repeatable file export. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond them – nothing about overwrite behavior if xml_file already exists, permissions, or partial-failure semantics.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with an inline example; no filler or redundancy.

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 explained, but three required parameters at 0% coverage are largely undocumented and there is no usage or behavioral guidance for a write-to-file operation. The description is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 load. It explains only the 'items' address syntax ('POUs.FB_X' — folder.object) with examples; xml_file and plc_project_path remain entirely undocumented, so it partially compensates at best.

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 ('Export PLC objects') plus the output artifact ('PLCopen XML file'), and names the object-address format. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling xae_plcopen_import, though it does not explicitly route the agent.

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 when-to-use context, no prerequisite (e.g. an attached/open solution), and no comparison to related export tools such as ads_export, exp_template, or xae_plcopen_import. The agent must infer all of this.

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