parse_pacs002

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

The description discloses the return behavior: a structured ParsedPacs002 on success or an error object on failure. It also describes the content of the pacs.002 message (status codes and reason codes). Since no annotations are provided, this is adequate, though side effects are not mentioned (likely none).

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 concise, front-loaded, and well-structured. It starts with the main purpose, adds domain context, and ends with return behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: input (XML string), output structure, and relation to other message types. It does not address encoding or size limits, but these are not critical for parsing tools.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the 'xml' parameter. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates that the parameter is the XML message. Baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 clearly states it parses a pacs.002.001.10 message, specifies it is the response to pacs.008, and distinguishes it from sibling parse tools like parse_pacs008. The verb 'parse' and resource 'pacs.002' are explicit.

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 explains that pacs.002 is the response to a pacs.008 credit transfer, providing context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied sibling tools.

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