use_fb_in_ladder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the cloning and rebinding mechanism, notes that new_section overwrites if it exists, mentions auto-declaration of variable pins, and specifies default task. It also suggests building the project afterwards. It does not mention return values or error handling, but the behavior described is quite transparent for a tool without 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 well-structured: a clear prompt, a 'WHY' section that justifies the tool's existence, and then a parameter breakdown. It is somewhat lengthy but every part contributes meaning. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by rationale and parameter details. No redundant 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?

While the description thoroughly covers parameters and behavioral mechanics, it does not describe return values or possible errors (e.g., if the template section is missing). It also does not clarify how this tool relates to the sibling 'place_fb_in_ladder'. Given no output schema and no annotations, the agent would not know what to expect after invoking it. These gaps prevent it from being fully complete.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains each parameter explicitly: template_section, new_section, instance_name, bindings (with a concrete example), and task (with default). It also clarifies that omitted pins keep template bindings and that variable pins are auto-declared. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing rich semantic detail.

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 action: 'Place a function block in LADDER by cloning a GUI-authored FFB-in-LD template and rebinding it.' This is specific with verb and resource. It explains the mechanism and the WHY, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'place_fb_in_ladder' or mention any alternative tool, so it's not perfect on distinguishing from siblings.

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 provides context on why this approach is needed (hand-authoring is impossible) and directs users to use FBD for freely hand-authored logic. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'place_fb_in_ladder' or other alternatives. The guidance is more about the underlying limitation than about choosing between tools, so it's implied rather than explicit.

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