get_xy_data

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful semantic context, such as frame_index=-1 meaning the last frame and label selection determining extraction mode. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, connection requirements, or whether the operation is purely read-only.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clean Args list. It earns its place without repetition, though the coverage of parameters is incomplete.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema property descriptions, the description is materially incomplete. It omits the meaning of the required odb_path, the output variable/component semantics, and step_name behavior. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but not enough to make this description sufficient.

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 compensate for all 8 parameters. It only documents node_label, element_label, and frame_index. The required odb_path parameter, plus variable, component, step_name, and timeout, are left unexplained, leaving a significant gap for correct invocation.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Extract XY data from an ODB') and mentions history-based vs element-based extraction. However, it does not differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like get_history_output or get_field_output_summary, 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?

The description offers no guidance about when to prefer get_xy_data over alternatives; it only explains which label parameter to use for a given extraction type. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or sibling tools that might be more appropriate.

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