pcm_export_scd

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 discloses the read-only nature ('Read-only; no relay contact'), the refusal-to-overwrite safety behavior and its rationale ('often the baseline you are about to diff against'), and the distinction between project name and database name. This is rich behavior context though it doesn't cover all failure modes or return values.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: a clear one-sentence purpose, then a compact paragraph explaining the two critical parameter quirks, then a short behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place; the overwrite rationale is valuable context rather than padding.

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 4-parameter read-only export tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavioral and parameter semantics well. The output schema presumably documents the return value, so not describing it adds cost. A small gap remains on failure modes or the exact export format, but for a read-only export this is largely 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does meaningfully. It explains that 'project' is the PCM600 project name, not the database name — adding critical semantic context the schema lacks — and explains scl_version selects the IEC 61850 edition. overwrite's default false and its behavior is documented. out_path is the only parameter without added meaning.

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?

Purpose is clearly stated: 'Export a project's SCD file from the PCM600 database.' The verb (export) + resource (SCD file) + source (PCM600 database) are specific and immediately distinguish it from sibling tools like pcm_export_ied and pcm_import_scd. The 'Read-only; no relay contact' clarification reinforces its scope.

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?

Explains when to use it and provides explicit guidance on prerequisites: 'if you have the .apcmp, run apcmp_summary first to get the right one.' It also documents the overwrite behavior and default behavior ('omit it for the PCM600 default'), which signals when overwrite=true is needed. This is strong conditional guidance.

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