plc_generate_iec_xml

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation, and the description adds real behavior on top: optional local XSD validation and the explicit constraint that no IDE import or build is performed or implied. It does not say what happens on validation failure or whether the destination file is overwritten, keeping it below 5.

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?

Two tight sentences that lead with the core action and follow with the validating/negative constraint. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the nested $defs are self-documenting structurally. Still, for a five-parameter generator writing to a destination path, the description omits any parameter-level context and gives no guidance on validation failure or output file behavior.

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% across five parameters (name, destination, pous, global_variables, schema_path), so the description must carry the load. It only indirectly gestures at schema_path via "validate against a local XSD when available"; destination path format, the role of name, and the pous/global_variables split are never explained.

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?

States a concrete verb and artifact: generate IEC 61131-10 XML containing ST or Ladder POUs and variable declarations, for import. The closing clause ("never imply IDE import/build") separates it from creation-in-project siblings like plc_create_pou, though it does not name them.

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?

"For import" plus "never imply IDE import/build" implies this is the file-generation step that precedes staging/import, which is useful implied routing. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over plc_create_pou or plc_stage_iec_xml_import.

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