fanuc_parse_ls

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 clarify the 'exactly one' exclusivity constraint (path XOR text), which is useful, but it doesn't disclose error behavior for invalid paths, malformed LS syntax, or what happens when both path and text are provided. The expected parse result structure is available in the output schema, which mitigates some gaps.

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?

One sentence with high information density: the action, resource, and the key input constraint are all present with zero filler. This is appropriately concise for a simple two-parameter tool.

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?

The output schema is rich and fully defines the return shape (blocks with addresses, operands, etc.), so the description doesn't need to repeat that. However, it doesn't cover error cases, the precise semantics of 'exactly one' enforcement, or any limits on file size/text length. Adequate for a straightforward parser but with room to add failure-mode transparency.

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 two parameters (path and text) have no per-parameter descriptions. The description does clarify that they are mutually exclusive alternatives, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema, but it doesn't specify path format, text encoding, or precedence rules if both are supplied.

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 a clear verb ('Parse'), a specific resource ('FANUC LS source'), and the input constraint ('exactly one local .ls path or LS text string'). It distinguishes the tool as the parsing entry point compared to sibling tools that format and validate, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies the tool is for converting raw LS source into structured data, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over the sibling formatting or validation tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or input restrictions beyond 'exactly one' source.

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