get_sios

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

With readOnlyHint=true the safety profile is covered by annotations, and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the call wraps NBAPI GetSios and the response carries a NEXTKEY pagination cursor. It does not say how paging is continued or what fields an SIO record contains, but the pagination disclosure is meaningful.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the hard constraint and return-format note. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

For a single-required-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the mandatory input, and the pagination cursor an agent needs to handle results. What an SIO record actually contains is left unstated, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 100% and the single MERCURYKEY parameter is fully documented in the schema, including how to discover keys via get_mercury_panels. The description only restates that MERCURYKEY is required, adding no new semantic detail — the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb (lists) and resource (SIOs / serial I/O boards) with clear scope (attached to one Mercury panel), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_sio (singular), so it falls short of full sibling routing.

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?

It states a real usage constraint — there is no unfiltered "all SIOs" listing and MERCURYKEY is required — which tells the agent it must already hold a panel key before calling. It does not name an alternative tool or spell out prerequisites, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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