Read FATEK .ldr ladder logic in display order, rejecting files with bad CRC and preserving unknown payloads for lossless inspection.
Read logic in display order; unknown payloads stay opaque. Reject bad CRC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | 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 already establish readOnly/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real traits: output is in display order, unrecognized payloads are left opaque rather than decoded, and files with bad CRC are rejected. Those are non-obvious behaviors an agent would otherwise learn only by trial.
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 compact clauses, no waste, with the core action front-loaded before the behavioral caveats. Perfectly sized for a single-parameter read tool.
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 explained, and the description covers validation failure (bad CRC) and opaque payload handling. What is missing is any routing versus the similar-looking sibling inspect_ldr.
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?
The single parameter (path) has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about it — no format, no relative-vs-absolute guidance. Although 'path' is fairly self-evident, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap as required when coverage is below 50%.
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 (Read) and resource (logic, i.e. the LDR content) plus a scope qualifier (display order). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling inspect_ldr, which sounds like it also reads LDR files, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the text alone.
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 mention of the alternatives (inspect_ldr, validate_ladder, export_ldr) that share this domain. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.