gx3_ladder_print

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output can be large and that the 'output' parameter writes to a file (implying side effects). It also explains filtering behavior. However, it does not state the return format or whether the tool is read-only, but for a rendering tool this is acceptable.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose. The second addresses output size and file writing. The third gives a practical filtering workflow. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or 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?

Despite having 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a coherent mental model: render a program, handle large output via file, and filter using discovered sections. It is not exhaustive about return values or exact parameter syntax, but the schema covers those. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the parameters interrelate: using 'list_sections' to discover section titles, then using 'section', 'pos_range', or 'device' to filter. It also clarifies that 'output' handles large outputs by writing to a file. This enriches the schema-only meanings.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Render a program in GX Works3 print-text layout.' This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like gx3_trace_device or gx3_lint, which focus on analysis rather than rendering.

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 gives clear usage context: it warns that output can be large and suggests using 'output' to write to a file. It also provides a concrete workflow for filtering by using 'list_sections' to discover section titles and then applying filters like 'section', 'pos_range', or 'device'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the workflow is sufficient.

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