xae_tree_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: xml=true triggers ProduceXml and depth bounds child recursion. It does not mention max_items truncation behavior or any cost/side effects of ProduceXml, so the added value is moderate rather than rich.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the core capability before the syntax details. The root-code list is dense but each entry carries selector information an agent needs, so almost nothing is wasted.

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-value documentation is not required. With path grammar, root codes, depth and xml semantics covered, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly; only max_items behavior and any exclusions remain unspecified.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains path syntax and valid roots, ties depth to child expansion, and ties xml to ProduceXml output, but max_items (default 2000) is never mentioned, leaving one of four parameters completely undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb (get) and resource (System Manager tree item), and enumerates what comes back: properties, children to depth, and ProduceXml when xml=true. It is clearly a read tool, but it never names its siblings (xae_tree_set_values, xae_tree_create_child, xae_tree_delete), so the distinction is inferable rather than stated.

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 implied by the path syntax and root list ('TIPC^Plc^Plc Project^POUs^MAIN'; roots TIID/TIPC/TIRC/TIRR/TINC), which tells an agent how to address a node. However there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no pointer to xae_tree_consume_xml for xml output or to the write siblings.

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