open_animation_table

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the GUI opens read-only while the client keeps write, and that the table animates live once connected. This is critical behavioral context: it tells the agent that this tool has no write side-effects and that the animation depends on an active connection. It also implies a step dependency (must be connected) which is not in annotations. Missing a bit about failure modes or exact GUI behavior, but overall strong.

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 tightly written, with three sentences. The first states purpose and key context, the second gives the usage flow, the third explains read-only and live animation. No filler. It's structured logically: what, when, and behavioral notes. Efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main usage context and behavior. The main gap is explaining the parameters, especially 'state', and what the return/result of the call is (though it's a GUI opener, so no output is fine). The typical flow and read-only behavior are excellent. Slightly incomplete on parameter semantics and edge cases, but overall adequate.

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%, and the description doesn't explain the parameters at all. 'name' likely refers to the table name, but it's not stated; 'state' with default 'show_normal' is entirely unexplained. The agent must infer what 'state' means (e.g., window state, display mode). The description only mentions 'open' and 'editor', not parameter details. Since schema provides only titles and types, this is a significant gap.

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?

Description is very specific: 'Open an existing animation table's editor inside the live Control Expert window' clearly states verb (open), resource (animation table editor), and context (live window). It differentiates from creation/deletion siblings by focusing on opening existing tables. The typical live-test flow provides strong distinction from list_animation_tables (which lists names) and create_animation_table.

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 explicitly gives the typical live-test flow: create_animation_table -> start_simulator ->_connect -> plc_transfer -> plc_command('run') -> open__table. This tells the agent exactly when to call this tool – after the simulation is running and connected. It also states that the GUI opens read-only and that this client keeps write, implying when to use it (for live monitoring) vs. other write operations.

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