get_dtm_dataset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so well. It reveals the binary-framed FDT container format, explains that the returned XML is not byte-faithful, and warns against editing and writing it back. This is valuable beyond anything in the schema or annotations.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, format/caveat, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and avoids 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral caveats, and alternatives impressively well. The only notable gap is the ambiguous 'name' parameter, which prevents fully confident invocation without additional inference.

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 schema provides only a required 'name' string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description never explains what 'name' should be, such as a DTM path, identifier, or display name, so the agent must infer the parameter semantics from context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export a slave DTM's configuration dataset for INSPECTION.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_master_dtm_dataset and set_master_dtm_dataset by naming them explicitly.

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?

It states when to use the tool (for inspecting/exporting a slave DTM dataset) and explicitly routes to alternatives for M580 Modbus scan lines. It also warns against writing the result back via set_dtm_dataset, which is a clear exclusion.

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