raw_xml_view

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: read-only, returns [] on no match, raises on malformed XPath. This is transparent for a query tool, though it does not mention performance or limits.

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 two sentences plus examples, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without fluff, making it efficiently informative.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return values (serialised XML strings, [] on no match) and error behavior (raises on malformed XPath). For a read-only query tool, this is complete.

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 description provides XPath context (namespaces, root element) and examples for the xpath parameter, adding value beyond the schema. However, the path parameter is not described, and schema coverage is 0%, so compensation is partial.

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 performs a read-only XPath query against a report, returning matched elements as serialised XML strings. It identifies the resource (report) and action (query), distinguishing it from sibling tools like raw_xml_replace which modify.

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 XML via XPath, contrasting with write tools, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance.

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