iec61850_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description reinforces with '[READ][risk=low]'. It adds context by noting that the return is a dict with an error field, but it does not disclose potential failure modes or endpoint configuration requirements beyond a brief mention. That said, with annotations covering the safety profile, the additional context is modest.

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 efficiently structured with a front-loaded tag, clear Args section, Return type, and a working example. Every sentence serves a purpose with no filler, making it easy to scan and absorb.

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 single-read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return shape, and an example. It omits explicit error-handling details but includes an 'error' field in the return dict, which implies failure reporting. The lack of a defined output schema is offset by the return dict description, making it sufficiently complete for 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: reference with an example, fc with sample values, and endpoint with source from config. It also shows defaults (fc defaults to MX, endpoint null). This provides enough semantic meaning for correct usage, though fc's full range is not exhaustively listed.

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 opens with '[READ][risk=low]' and states 'Read one data attribute by object-reference + functional constraint.' This is a specific verb, resource, and scope, clearly distinguishing it from sibling browse tools like iec61850_browse. The example further clarifies the exact use case.

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 reading a single attribute via the phrase 'Read one data attribute' and provides a concrete example, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like iec61850_browse. No exclusions or alternative guidance is given.

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