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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes what is returned (read-style lookup content) but does not state read-only semantics, auth requirements, cost, or caching behavior. For a simple configuration lookup the enumeration of return content covers most of what an agent needs.

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 sentences, zero filler. The return-content list comes first and the usage directive is front-loaded second, so the agent gets both the what and the when in the most useful order.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return contents, which is appropriate for a lookup tool. Minor gap: no disclosure of whether configuration is static or version-dependent, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the brand slug or its format beyond the schema.

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 specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('brand-specific configuration for a PLC') and enumerates the content categories (memory areas, data types, naming conventions, ST syntax, IEC 61131-3 languages, project structure). This is clearly distinct from sibling reference/template tools like get_iec61131_reference and get_code_template.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Always call this before generating code for a specific brand.' That is a strong, actionable directive. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully warn that the returned template is not final code ("fill in the user-specific logic"), but it says nothing about the return form (code block vs. file), permissions, or whether the patterns are exhaustive. Adequate but not rich for an unannotated tool.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first states what is returned and the domain, the second states how to use it. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter enum-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well. The only minor gap is that it never characterizes the response payload beyond 'code template,' which for template retrieval is a small omission.

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 100% with both parameters enum-constrained, so the schema already documents valid values fully. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no mention of 'pattern' or 'language'), which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Returns ... IEC 61131-3 code template") plus the qualifier "ready-to-adapt" and the domain "common automation pattern." It is clear enough to distinguish Get from its list-style siblings (list_templates, list_brands), though it never names a sibling explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

"Use this as the structural starting point, then fill in the user-specific logic" tells the agent the intended workflow, but there is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing against get_iec61131_reference or list_templates. Usage is implied rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only lookup and enumerates the content categories returned, but says nothing about output size/format, whether results are static reference data or dynamically generated, or any auth/pagination behavior. Adequate but with gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the return payload, the second gives the use case. Front-loaded with zero filler.

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 two-parameter reference lookup with full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. Without an output schema it could say more about the shape of the returned reference, but the single missing detail is minor.

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 100% and both parameters are enum-constrained and documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description references "the requested language" and its content list loosely maps to the topic enum values, but it adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 specific verb (Returns) and resource (IEC 61131-3 language reference), then enumerates the exact content: keywords, standard function blocks, data types, and syntax rules. It is clearly not a brand/template tool like its siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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?

"Use this to ensure generated code is spec-compliant" gives a clear triggering context for the tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but for a zero-parameter list tool the burden is small. "Returns" implies a non-mutating read, and it discloses the shape of the payload (brands, IDEs, languages), though it says nothing about ordering, completeness guarantees, or whether results are static or dynamically discovered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource and the returned fields with zero padding or repetition 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?

With no input schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must carry the return-value explanation, and it does by naming brands, IDEs, and their programming languages. It stops short of routing the agent to the natural follow-up (get_brand_config), which is the only real gap for a tool this simple.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter detail.

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 specific verb and resource ("Returns all PLC brands and IDEs") and even names the payload fields (common programming languages), so an agent knows exactly what this yields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_brand_config, which an agent could reasonably confuse with a brand-listing call.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over get_brand_config, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the discovery/enumeration entry point from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose return content ('a short description of each'), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or completeness guarantees for a zero-param list operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the return content is appended compactly.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the definition is nearly complete: it says what is returned and roughly in what form. The one missing piece is guidance on following up with get_code_template to retrieve full template details.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document — the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are accepted.

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 specific verb and resource ('Lists all available code templates') and adds the scope ('all') plus what each entry contains. It implicitly contrasts with the singular sibling get_code_template, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the enumeration entry point, but there is no explicit 'use this when you need to discover templates, then call get_code_template for full content' routing despite a closely related sibling.

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