Plecs Get Model Tree

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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=true and adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotation: results arrive as base64 JSON, summary=True "drops connections" (a non-obvious side effect on the returned payload), and decode=False passes the raw envelope through. It stops short of describing error behavior for a bad path or how large the full tree can be.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core action and the path requirement, then the two flags in call order. Slightly terse notation (double-backtick flags, "needs an absolute path") costs a little polish but nothing is wasted.

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 need not be spelled out; the description still usefully notes the base64 encoding and the summary-mode shape. For a read-only 3-parameter tool with annotated safety this is nearly complete, missing only error/edge-case guidance.

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 carry all three parameters — and it effectively does: model_path must be absolute, summary=True changes the returned content to counts plus analysis/subsystem/component names, and decode=False returns {"result": "<base64>"} unchanged. It does not specify the exact shape of the summary output or how paths are validated.

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 ("Return the model tree") plus a key constraint (absolute path required) and the encoding format PLECS uses. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as plecs_overview or plecs_instances, which an agent may reasonably confuse with a model-structure retrieval.

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 implies usage through the flag explanations (use summary=True to get counts/names, decode=False for raw base64) and states the absolute-path precondition, but never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives like plecs_overview or plecs_instances, nor when not to call it.

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