scl_get_ied

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the scope of detail returned (logical devices, logical nodes, datasets, control blocks) which adds useful context about what the agent will receive. However, it doesn't describe output format specifics, whether the returned structure is nested/hierarchical, or any auth/access requirements for reading a specific IED.

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?

Single sentence, efficient, no filler. The list of contents (logical devices, logical nodes, datasets, control blocks) is informative without being verbose. Appropriate for a read-only detail tool.

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 output schema exists which reduces the burden of describing return values. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter schema coverage, the 'path' parameter ambiguity is a notable gap. For a tool with 2 simple parameters and an output schema, this is reasonably complete but the path ambiguity and lack of usage guidance leave room for improvement.

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 schema only provides names ('path', 'ied') with no descriptions. The description mentions 'one IED' which maps to the 'ied' parameter, but neither the description nor schema clarifies what 'path' refers to (SCD file path? hierarchical path?). This is a significant gap for a 2-parameter tool with zero schema documentation.

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 uses a clear verb+resource structure: 'Detail one IED' with the specific contents of logical devices, logical nodes, datasets, and control blocks. It distinguishes from siblings like scl_list_ieds (which lists IEDs) and scl_list_datasets (which lists datasets), though it doesn't explicitly name the differentiating sibling.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. It doesn't state when to use this vs scl_list_ieds or scl_list_datasets, leaving the agent to infer that this is the more detailed single-IED variant. No alternatives are named.

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