pcm_export_bulk_parameters

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 explicitly discloses 'Read-only; no relay contact' — a valuable behavioral trait indicating this tool does not mutate the device or relay. It also adds context that no technical key is needed. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond what any annotation would provide.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded in sentence one. Sentences two and three add meaningful context (no technical key, discovery use case, read-only behavior). No wasted words, appropriately sized.

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?

The tool has an output schema (so return value explanation isn't needed), moderate complexity with 3 params, and the description covers discovery use case, permissions behavior, and purpose. It's reasonably complete for the given complexity. The main gap is parameter guidance, but the two required params are self-explanatory from names.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds zero parameter-level detail. `project` and `out_dir` are self-evident from their names, and `overwrite` with default false is fairly clear, but the description doesn't explain the expected format of out_dir, whether overwrite replaces individual files, or any constraints. With 0% coverage, the description needed to compensate and didn't.

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 clearly states it exports `.xrio` parameter files for every IED in a project into one directory. The verb `export` + resource `parameter files` + scope `every IED in a project` is specific. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like `pcm_export_parameters` or `pcm_export_ied`, though the `bulk` and `every IED` phrasing partially implies the distinction.

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 notes 'Needs no technical key, which makes it the easiest way to discover what IEDs a project holds and what their keys are.' This gives implied usage context (good for discovery). However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs `pcm_export_parameters` (single) or other export variants, nor when NOT to use it.

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