get_routine

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that routine_name is ignored, which is a behavioral trait. It also implies identical behavior to get_pou. However, it does not specify output format, side effects, or permissions. The alias reference partially compensates, but the lack of detail on what 'body' means or any error conditions leaves a moderate gap.

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 a compact docstring with a one-line purpose and an Args list. It front-loads the primary purpose and then provides parameter details without any fluff. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (an alias with 3 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is sufficient. It explains the alias, the ignored parameter, and all parameter semantics. The only missing piece is a description of the return value, but the output schema likely covers that, so it is not a critical gap.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does: path is the project file or directory, program is the POU name, and routine_name is explicitly ignored. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and is clear and precise for an agent.

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 specific verb ('Get'), resource ('POU's body'), and clarifies it is an alias for get_pou. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the canonical tool and explaining the studio5000 familiarity rationale. This is unambiguous and leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says it is an alias for get_pou and explains the routine_name parameter is ignored to support the studio5000 calling convention. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool (when familiar with studio5000 naming) and implicitly that get_pou is the canonical alternative. It does not provide explicit exclusions, but the alias relationship itself is strong guidance.

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