get_pous

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but does not mention whether it requires an open project, works directly on files, or has any side effects. It also does not describe what happens if the path is invalid or if search yields no results. The description does not contradict anything, but it is insufficiently transparent.

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: one line stating purpose, then a clean Arg list with each parameter explained. No unnecessary words; the purpose is front-loaded and the argument details are structured and scannable. This is an ideal format for agent consumption.

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?

All four parameters are explained and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks some operational details: it does not state whether it scans subdirectories, handles relative vs absolute paths, or what the size field represents. Given the read-only nature and clear purpose, it is mostly complete, but a few behavioral nuances are missing.

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 fully explain parameters. It does so effectively: path is explained as project file or directory, language lists allowed values ('ST', 'LD', 'FBD'), task gives an example ('FastTsk'), and search specifies case-insensitive substring on POU name. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's type/default info.

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 clearly states the tool lists programs and function blocks, with specific output fields (language, task, size). It distinguishes from siblings like get_pou (singular) and get_udts by specifying the resource and scope, so an agent can select it appropriately.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_pou fetches a single POU or that get_routines handles routines, nor does it state any exclusions or conditions. The usage context must be inferred solely from the name and purpose.

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