parse_pacs008

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns a structured ParsedPacs008 object or an error dictionary on failure, preventing crashes. This tells the agent exactly what to expect.

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 and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, provides relevant context, and ends with return behavior. Every sentence is informative without redundancy.

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 description covers purpose, usage context, and error handling. Although an output schema exists but is not shown, the description summarizes the return structure adequately. It could potentially mention more about the parsed fields, but remains sufficient for an agent.

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?

The single parameter 'xml' is fully described in the schema with coverage of 100%. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already states, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 identifies the tool as parsing a pacs.008.001.08 message, providing specific context about its use in cross-border payments and SWIFT requirements. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle different message types (pacs002, pain001, etc.).

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 the tool's role in parsing pacs.008 messages and mentions its importance for SWIFT traffic. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, the context of siblings (e.g., validate_pacs008) implies the distinction between parsing and validation.

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