scl_list_ieds

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. 'List every IED' suggests a read-only operation, but the description doesn't state whether the file is parsed/validated, whether it fails on malformed files, or what the output structure looks like. There's an output schema present which mitigates some of this, but behavioral traits like error handling are undisclosed.

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?

A single focused sentence that states the action, the resource, and the returned fields with zero filler. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant information.

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 list-all operation with one obvious parameter, the description is largely sufficient. An output schema exists to document return values. The main gap is the lack of any mention of IED list semantics (ordering, filtering) or error behavior, but for a simple list tool among many structured siblings this is an acceptable level of completeness.

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 there is only one parameter (path). The description implies 'path' refers to an SCL file location, but doesn't add explicit format details (relative vs absolute, supported file extensions, etc.). Since the parameter is a single, obvious 'path' with a self-evident semantic, the schema carries most of the meaning, and the description adds only marginal clarity.

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 clear verb+resource combination ('List every IED in an SCL file') and names the specific fields returned (manufacturer, type, config version, address). It distinguishes from siblings like scl_get_ied (singular retrieval vs. list-all) and scl_list_datasets/scl_list_goose (different resource types), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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 'every IED' phrasing implies a comprehensive listing vs. the single-IED scl_get_ied sibling, providing some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., file must be valid SCL), and no exclusion criteria relative to alternatives. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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