read_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation and describes the return payload (XML). However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or mention prerequisites like an open project, which would be valuable context.

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 exactly two sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded ('Read the logic of a program section as Control Expert XML'), and the additional detail about XML contents and compatibility adds value without fluff.

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 tool with two required, undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It does mention the output format, but it fails to explain the parameters themselves, any prerequisites (e.g., open project), or potential error conditions. This makes it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke it correctly.

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% – neither 'task' nor 'section' has a description. The tool description does not explain what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or valid values. This leaves the agent without guidance on how to fill the two required fields, 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?

The description states a specific verb (read), a resource (program section), and the output format (Control Expert XML). It explicitly mentions the XML contains ST text, ladder rungs, and FBD networks, which clearly differentiates it from project-wide export or write tools like export_xml or write_st_logic.

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 implies when to use it (to retrieve a single section's logic) by specifying the section as the target. The mention that the format matches import_xml(kind='section') suggests a read-modify-write workflow, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like export_xml or read the entire project structure.

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