get_fb_signature

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility, and it delivers substantial behavioral detail. It explains that the project and firmware library reference are combined, that pins absent from the project are still listed, and that 'unsupportedPins' identifies parameters that exist but do nothing on this firmware. This gives an agent important expectations beyond the schema.

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?

The description is longer than necessary but well organized with a front-loaded purpose, bulleted explanation of the two authorities, and a clear Args section. The detail about unsupportedPins earns its place, and the structure makes the extra length digestible.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the tool has only two parameters, the description covers what an agent needs: purpose, parameter meanings, the two information sources, and special behavior around unsupported pins. There are no annotations to fill gaps, but the description is thorough enough on its own.

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?

The schema only declares two string parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: path is a project file or directory, and fb_name is a function block name with concrete examples like 'MC_Power' and 'Y_CamIn'. This is sufficient for the two simple parameters, though slightly more format guidance could push it higher.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a function block's interface — for calling or instancing it correctly.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve source code, types, or project structure, and it explains the practical reason the interface is needed.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need the exact interface of a function block to call or instance it, combining project metadata with firmware library knowledge. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them, but the stated use case is strong enough to guide selection.

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