Dump curated data

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait: the return is plain text, not structured JSON, and covers an entire subject at once. It says nothing about payload size, read-only nature, or cost of pulling a large file into context, which matters for a bulk dump.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the return contract and followed by the use case. The enum list is somewhat redundant with the schema, a minor cost, but nothing is padded.

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, so the description correctly fills that gap by stating the return format is text and scoped to one curated file. For a single-enum-parameter read tool, that is close to sufficient; only size/cost expectations are 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 0%, but the sole parameter is a self-documenting enum whose eight values the description repeats verbatim. The description adds no per-value meaning (e.g., what 'sheets' or 'nozzle_flow' contain), so it duplicates the schema rather than compensating for the coverage gap.

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 ('Return one curated data file as text') and enumerates exactly which files exist, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with granular siblings like machine_overview or get_plc_io, which is the only thing separating it from 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?

'Handy to load a whole subject into context at once' implies the bulk-loading use case, which is real guidance. However, it never names an alternative or states when a granular sibling (get_axis, get_plc_io, get_procedure) would be preferable, so the choice is left to inference.

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