krl_control_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the KUKA KRL Professional license requirement and names the output artifacts, but omits whether the operation is read-only, how the output is formatted (e.g., text vs. image), and any error or side-effect behavior.

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 two tightly written sentences with the purpose and license requirement front-loaded. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) but lacks an output schema, and the description does not explain the return format of the CFG or Mermaid diagram, nor does it address error handling. Given the absence of annotations, more behavioral detail would be expected.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'code' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (Generates) and two concrete output artifacts (Control Flow Graph and Mermaid diagram) for a KRL routine. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the unique output makes the tool distinguishable.

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 license prerequisite is mentioned, which is useful context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like krl_lint_snippet or krl_deep_safety_audit. Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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