iec61850_browse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the primary burden is satisfied. The description adds that only immediate children are returned (non-recursive) and specifies the return dict shape, which provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: it opens with a purpose tag, then lists args, return format, and an example. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a simple read-only browse tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, return structure, and an example. It does not mention error handling or explicitly guide alternative tool selection, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description compensates by documenting 'reference' with concrete examples (e.g., 'IED1LD0' or 'IED1LD0/LLN0') and 'endpoint' as a config name. This adds meaning over the bare schema, though the endpoint description is somewhat terse.

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 the tool browses immediate model children under an LD/LN/DO reference, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like iec61850_read and iec61850_device_directory, which likely handle reads or full directory listing.

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 implies usage for hierarchical navigation by saying 'browse immediate model children', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks exclusions or guidance about when to prefer a full device directory or point read.

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