HMI Import Preflight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real context beyond that by promising a deterministic result with issues and row provenance, and by stating it never connects to an HMI or PLC. It does not say anything about input limits or failure modes, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences ordered action-first, then routing condition, then return/behavior guarantees — no filler. Slightly redundant in restating equivalence with check_hmi_import_csv, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

With rich annotations, no output schema, and a thin input schema, the description carries the right load: it explains what is returned (deterministic result, issues, row provenance) and that no external HMI/PLC is touched. Only the parameter-level contract is left thin, which is a modest gap for a compatibility alias.

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 compensate, and it only partially does: the three CSV types named in the text (tags, digital alarms, analog alarms) map to the three parameters, but format expectations, mutual exclusivity, and the fact that all three are optional (empty defaults) are unstated. Meaningful but incomplete compensation.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Check supplied FactoryTalk View tag, digital-alarm or analog-alarm CSV text before import') and explicitly frames the tool as a compatibility alias that mirrors check_hmi_import_csv. An agent can distinguish it from the canonical sibling without opening either schema.

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?

It states the exact condition that selects this tool ('Use this compatibility name when an existing FactoryTalk Preflight connection exposes audit_factorytalk_import') and names the alternative it is equivalent to (check_hmi_import_csv). Nothing about routing 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the deterministic contract rules validated (version marker, record shape, required fields, addresses, severity, thresholds), the exact return shape (result, issue_count, issues with code/severity/message and provenance, summary by code), and an explicit disclaimer of runtime/safety certification.

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?

Purpose and argument routing are front-loaded and every sentence contributes (validation scope, return shape, limits, disclaimer). It is dense as a single block of prose rather than being broken into scannable segments, which slightly hurts readability but not substance.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by enumerating return fields and their meaning, plus the boundary of the tool's responsibility — an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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% and the parameter titles are unhelpful, so the description must carry the burden — and it does, defining each of the three arguments as the complete CSV text for a specific export type (FactoryTalk View tags, digital alarms, analog alarms) and clarifying all are optional.

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: 'Check a supplied CSV before importing it into an HMI project.' It scopes the check to HMI import CSVs and clearly differs from the sibling hmi_preflight_service_info, which by name is a service-metadata tool rather than a CSV validator.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it ('static import preflight only'), when not to ('does not connect to any HMI or PLC and does not certify runtime or safety behavior'), and how to select each argument by export type, including that arguments may be omitted when that type is not being checked.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value on top: the output is 'bounded', it mirrors another tool's payload, and it performs no CSV inspection, which tells the agent this is a metadata-only lookup rather than a content validator. Error, pagination or auth behavior is still unstated, keeping it short of a 5.

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 load-bearing: the first defines the return payload, the second gives the invocation condition and the negative scope. The when-to-use cue is front-loaded after the purpose, with no filler or restated title text.

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 zero-parameter alias with no output schema, the description names the returned metadata categories (deployment, scope, payment) and rules out CSV work, which is enough for correct invocation. It does not describe the payload's shape or size, but annotations already carry the safety profile and no output schema exists to document returns.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by describing the result as fixed bounded metadata.

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 ('Return') plus the exact resource classes (bounded deployment, scope and payment metadata) and frames itself as a compatibility alias for hmi_preflight_service_info. It also draws a hard boundary against the CSV-inspecting siblings with 'it does not inspect CSV content', so an agent can separate it from check_hmi_import_csv and audit_factorytalk_import without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit selection condition: use this name when an existing FactoryTalk Preflight connection exposes factorytalk_product_status, which names the alternative (hmi_preflight_service_info) by reference. It stops short of stating the inverse rule ('otherwise call hmi_preflight_service_info'), so the routing is strongly implied rather than fully spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the deterministic/read-only nature of the preflight scope and that the response is bounded metadata about stage, production availability and payment status. No auth or rate-limit detail, but not needed here.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then the return contents. It is slightly dense but each sentence carries distinct information; nothing is redundant with the name or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (product, stage, deterministic flag, payment_enabled, production_enabled, supported scope, payment scope). For a zero-param informational tool this is complete enough to call correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly focuses on what the call returns rather than inventing input semantics.

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 bounded service metadata for HMI Import Preflight') and immediately differentiates from the sibling by scope: metadata discovery vs. CSV inspection. An agent can tell it apart from check_hmi_import_csv without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('only to discover the service's deployment stage, deterministic/read-only preflight scope, production availability and payment status') and when not to ('do not use it to inspect CSV content'), which routes the agent to the sibling for CSV work.

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