Plecs Get

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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=true; nothing contradicts the safe-read annotation. It adds real behavioral detail beyond the annotations: results are strings, omitting ``parameter`` returns a dict of all parameters, and C-Script reads expand into Declarations/StartFcn/OutputFcn/etc.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then return-shape, then the C-Script special case. Four short lines, each carrying information; the C-Script sentence is dense but earns its place as a diagnostic hint.

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 return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still adds useful return-shape hints. What is missing is guidance on path formatting and failure behavior for an invalid path, which matters for the sole required parameter.

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 carry the load. It fully explains ``parameter`` (optional; omit to get everything) but says nothing about the required ``path`` — its expected format or whether it is a model path vs. component path — which is the higher-risk parameter.

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 — reading a component or model parameter — and clarifies that model-level parameters like "TimeSpan" are in scope. An agent can distinguish it from the mutating sibling plecs_set by the read verb, though it never names that counterpart.

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?

Gives a concrete workflow trigger: for C-Script components this is "the first step after a compilation error." That is clear context, but there are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. plecs_set for writing, plecs_get_model_tree for structure).

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