get_iec61131_reference

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.