get_dtm_control_parameters

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects and prerequisites. It says 'Read', implying a read-only operation, but does not state whether it requires an open project, whether it is non-destructive, or what error conditions may occur. The output format is specified, but behavioral traits are understated.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists details concisely. No extraneous information is present.

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?

While the output format is detailed (XML with schema and components), the lack of parameter explanation and absence of any prerequisites or behavioral notes makes the description incomplete for a one-parameter tool. It does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 explain the 'name' parameter. It does not mention what 'name' refers to (e.g., the DTM's name), leaving the agent without sufficient guidance to correctly supply the parameter.

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 tool reads a master/communication DTM's control parameters and specifies the exact content (Modbus TCP I/O scanner lines, addresses, sizes). It distinguishes itself from write counterparts by using the verb 'Read', though it does not explicitly contrast with get_dtm_dataset or other read tools.

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 implies the usage context—when you need control parameters of a master/communication DTM—but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternatives like set_dtm_control_parameters for writes. The guidance is implied, not explicit.

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