Plecs Fmu Info

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the verb "Read", so no contradiction. The description adds context beyond the annotation by enumerating the two accepted path shapes (packaged .fmu/.zip versus an unpacked directory), which is the main behavioral surprise for a caller; it stops short of mentioning failure modes for malformed or unsupported archives.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause (FMI metadata, the two accepted input forms) earns its place with zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not describe returned metadata fields, and the tool takes only one read-only parameter. What remains thin is error/edge-case behavior and any hint of which FMI version or fields are surfaced, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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% and the single required parameter `path` has no schema description, so the description must carry the load. It does clarify that the path may target either an archive or an unpacked folder, but says nothing about absolute vs. relative paths, network paths, or what happens if the target is missing.

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 and resource ("Read FMI metadata") plus the accepted input forms (.fmu/.zip archive or unpacked folder), which clearly separates it from the write-side sibling plecs_export_fmu. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for inspecting an FMU's FMI metadata. There is no statement of when to prefer it over plecs_export_fmu, plecs_load, or plecs_validate, and no prerequisites (does the path need to exist locally? must it be an FMU rather than a model?).

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