Re-encode a FATEK .ldr ladder file into a new output file, preserving opaque bytes and the original invalid CRC.
Re-encode to a NEW file, preserving opaque bytes and any original invalid CRC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| output_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world write. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: output goes to a NEW file rather than mutating in place, and opaque bytes and corrupt CRCs are preserved verbatim rather than re-normalized. It still does not say what happens if output_name already exists.
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 tightly-written sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Given the 0% parameter coverage, the brevity is arguably under-specification rather than economy, but nothing present is wasteful.
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 no explanation. However, for a file-writing tool with two opaque required parameters, the description omits overwrite semantics, path conventions, and what 'path' vs 'output_name' each refer to, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 both required parameters are bare strings ('path', 'output_name'). The description's phrase 'to a NEW file' hints that output_name is the destination, but it never clarifies that path is the source LDR, nor gives any format or path-convention guidance. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('Re-encode') and the target ('to a NEW file'), plus two fidelity guarantees (opaque bytes, original invalid CRC). It implicitly distinguishes itself from read_ldr/inspect_ldr (read-only) and create_ldr (creation from scratch), though it never names an LDR or says what is being re-encoded from.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to any sibling. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is for round-tripping an existing file, converting formats, or exporting after a edit session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.