gx3_ladder_print

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and handles it well: it warns that output can be large, recommends writing to a file via 'output', and cautions to quote the result verbatim rather than restructure it as JSON. It also reveals the filtering workflow. It could mention whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, but for a rendering tool the key behaviors are disclosed.

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: the core rendering purpose comes first, followed by output-handling guidance and filter options. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 a 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, output form, size concern, file-writing option, and filtering workflow. The schema covers remaining parameter syntax. It is reasonably complete, though it does not spell out the full return contract beyond 'print-text layout'.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining when to use 'output' (large results) and how to combine 'list_sections', 'section', 'pos_range', and 'device' to emit only the relevant circuit. This goes beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb ('Render') and resource ('a program in GX Works3 print-text layout'), and further explains that this is the user-facing text for explaining circuit wiring. It distinguishes itself from other sibling tools by emphasizing verbatim text output, not a JSON dump. This makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: this is the output to show a user when explaining how a circuit is wired. It also explains how to narrow output using list_sections, section, pos_range, or device. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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