pcm_export_parameters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose read-only status and notes the file format is chosen by suffix, plus the critical technical_key vs SCL name distinction. However, it doesn't describe what happens on overwrite conflicts (despite an overwrite parameter), output format details, or failure modes.

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 compact, using a bolded emphasis on the key clarification. Every sentence adds value: the suffix-driven format choice, the technical_key clarification with example, and the read-only safety note. No wasted words.

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 4 params (3 required), no annotations, and an output schema present. The description covers technical_key well and format selection, but doesn't address the overwrite parameter behavior, potential errors, or what the export produces. While the output schema exists, the description could better explain the `project` and `overwrite` semantics for a 3-required-param tool without annotation support.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains `technical_key` in depth (PCM600 object-tree identity, not SCL IED name, with an example). It also clarifies `out_path` semantics via the file-suffix mechanism for format selection. However, `project` and `overwrite` parameters receive no description-level explanation beyond the schema field names.

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 action (export parameters) with a specific resource (one IED) to specific formats (.csv or .xrio). It clearly distinguishes this from bulk export (pcm_export_bulk_parameters) by emphasizing 'one IED's parameters'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other export siblings like pcm_export_ied or pcm_export_project, though the 'parameters' focus helps.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool, importantly distinguishing the `technical_key` from the SCL IED name context and noting it's read-only with no relay contact. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when NOT to use this tool vs the bulk export variant, leaving some inference required.

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