pcm_export_ied

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it does state 'Read-only; no relay contact' which is useful safety context, it doesn't disclose what the tool actually reads from (the source), whether the .apcmi file is platform-specific, what the 'overwrite' parameter does behaviorally, or what the output schema will return. For an export tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

Two short sentences with zero wasted words. The description front-loads the core purpose and immediately adds the read-only safety qualifier. Highly 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?

For a relatively simple file-export tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core intent. However, given zero annotations, absence of any parameter guidance, no description of the overwrite flag behavior, and no mention of when to use this vs pcm_export_scd/project, there is room for more. It's adequate but leaves gaps for a read-only operation tool with no safety annotations.

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%, meaning the description adds no parameter-level detail. With 4 parameters and 3 required, the description doesn't explain what 'project', 'technical_key', or 'out_path' mean, nor does it clarify the 'overwrite' default behavior. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory ('technical_key' likely identifies the IED), but the description adds nothing beyond what the schema shows, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Export), resource (a single IED), and output format (.apcmi file). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like pcm_export_scd, pcm_export_project, and pcm_export_parameters, which export different entities, and pcm_import_ied which is the inverse operation.

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 implies this is for exporting single IEDs as opposed to the sibling export tools for SCD, parameters, or the whole project. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention prerequisites (e.g., having a valid project/technical_key). The read-only note implies safe usage, but no explicit exclusions are given.

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