krl_syntax_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe, static reference lookup ('authoritative syntax definitions and examples'), which hints at read-only behavior, but it never states that no workspace state is touched, gives no response format or size guidance, and offers no coverage detail on that front.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb, the resource, and the keyword coverage with zero filler. The parenthetical keyword list is dense but earns its space by signaling scope.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition conveys what the content is (definitions and examples) but says nothing about return format, per-keyword content depth, or whether a single call returns one keyword's reference. The locale dimension's effect on output is only implied.

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 50%: the keyword param already lists its valid values in the schema, and the description's keyword list adds nothing new. The locale enum is documented only structurally, and the description's 'in 6 languages' is the sole clue that locale controls the language of the returned reference, which is genuine but thin added value.

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?

States a specific verb ('Provides syntax definitions and examples') and resource ('KUKA KRL statements') and enumerates the covered keywords, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the overlapping krl_control_flow sibling, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The reader must infer from 'authoritative syntax definitions' that this is the lookup to call before writing or validating KRL, while siblings like krl_lint_snippet and krl_control_flow are never mentioned as contrasts.

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