P&ID: Line List

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), and the description supplements it with real behavioral detail: untagged lines sort last with `line_number: null`, the drawing is untouched, and `csv_path` is the sole file written. That file-write disclosure is exactly the kind of side effect annotations cannot express.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second covers the two behaviors an agent would otherwise have to guess (row ordering and file side effects). No filler.

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 described, and the description still covers ordering behavior and the write side effect. Only the routing decision against sibling P&ID tools is left unaddressed.

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 100%, so scope, csv_path and tolerance are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 the correct score.

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 resource (P&ID lines) and enumerates the exact fields returned (number, class, size/service/spec/insulation, endpoints), which lets an agent distinguish it from pid_graph, pid_instrument_index and pid_equipment_list. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so a 4 rather than 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 note that rows come from `pid_graph` gives useful provenance context, implying this is a derived read view rather than the raw graph. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over pid_graph or the other P&ID list tools, leaving the choice to inference.

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