get_language_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the output is validated against a live Control Expert build, that the example imports and builds with 0 errors, and that the tool is a read-only reference step. It doesn't explicitly state 'does not modify state', but the workflow and wording make this clear enough.

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 dense and front-loaded with 'REQUIRED READING', then clearly states the return value, workflow, and alternative. Every sentence adds value; the workflow is a succinct but complete sequence. It is longer than some examples, but no part is 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?

Given a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (structure rules + example section) and how to use it in the larger workflow. The integration with import_xml and write_st_logic makes it contextually complete for an agent deciding to call it.

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 has a single parameter 'language' with no description and no enum, so the description must compensate. It does by listing the allowed languages ('ST', 'LD', 'FBD', 'SFC', 'IL') and providing guidance on ST via write_st_logic. This gives strong semantic meaning, though it doesn't explicitly map the parameter to the list.

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 returns a language-specific authoring guide and exchange-XML structure rules, including a validated example section. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming write_st_logic as an alternative for ST, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 provides an explicit workflow ('read this guide -> write the section XML -> import_xml -> build_project -> fix errors') and an explicit exclusion: 'For ST, prefer the write_st_logic tool (no XML needed).' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and when not to.

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