get_language_reference

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses that the returned guide is validated against a live build and provides example section, implying a non-destructive read operation. Could be more explicit about read-only nature.

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 informative but a bit verbose with workflow details. It is front-loaded with 'REQUIRED READING' and structured, though some sentences could be trimmed.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides thorough context: what the output contains, workflow, and cross-reference to another tool, making it complete for effective use.

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 input schema has 0% coverage; the description mentions example languages ('ST', 'LD', 'FBD', 'SFC', 'IL') but does not explicitly describe the 'language' parameter, leaving it unclear what values are acceptable.

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 that the tool returns the authoring guide for a Control Expert language, including XML structure rules and a complete example. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning write_st_logic for ST.

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?

Explicitly says it is required reading before writing logic, provides a step-by-step workflow, and advises to prefer write_st_logic for ST, making usage context very clear.

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