read_xml

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden. It indicates the tool is a 'raw XML fragment' reader and a fallback, but it does not explicitly state behavioral traits such as read-only safety, potential error conditions, truncation behavior (though max_chars is in the schema), or formatting of the returned data. The description is not misleading but lacks depth in explaining side effects or limitations.

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 short and to the point, consisting of two sentences. The core purpose ('Raw XML fragment by ElementTree path') is front-loaded, followed by a concrete example and the fallback condition. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's fallback nature and four parameters, the description provides enough to understand the general use case but leaves key parameter semantics ambiguous (handle, config). An output schema exists, which helps clarify return values, but for a tool with no annotations and zero schema parameter descriptions, the description alone is insufficient for a new agent to call it reliably without additional research.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only gives an example for 'path' (e.g., 'Zones/GKZone[1]') and implies what the path means. It does not explain 'handle' (likely a device or config handle), 'config' (though a default is given), or 'max_chars' (truncation limit). An agent would be uncertain about what to supply for handle and how the config interacts with the path, making parameter usage underspecified.

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 reads a raw XML fragment by ElementTree path (with an explicit example 'Zones/GKZone[1]') and identifies itself as a fallback when typed tools are insufficient. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from the many sibling typed tools like get_object or set_object.

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 a clear usage condition: use when 'типизированных инструментов не хватает' (typed tools are insufficient). It implies when not to use it (when typed tools cover the need), but it does not explicitly name any specific alternative tools. This is helpful but could be more explicit about which siblings to prefer.

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