get_dtm_dataset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the XML structure containing Modbus scan lines and hints at the editing workflow. However, it does not mention safety, permissions, or side effects, which would be expected for a read operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes useful technical detail without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the simple parameter set and absence of output schema, the description is mostly complete, covering purpose, data structure, and related tool. However, it lacks specifics on output format (e.g., plain XML string vs file) and prerequisites like DTM existence.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely implies that 'name' identifies the DTM, but does not explain what the parameter represents or any constraints. The description fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 action (Export) and the resource (DTM's full configuration dataset). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_dtm_dataset by mentioning the XML content and the write-back process.

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 specifies the use case for M580 master DTMs, providing context. It implicitly suggests when to use (export) and references set_dtm_dataset for writing back, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like get_master_dtm_dataset.

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