Search Current TIA Project Objects

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. Beyond that, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it does not perform export, body scanning, navigation, or PLC access, and pagination depends on an unchanged project inventory. It does not explain how the inventory is prepared or what refreshInventory does, but the key stability constraint is disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and search modes, then adds scope exclusions and a pagination constraint. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation information, with no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a complex tool with 10 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description covers purpose, search modes, exclusions, and a pagination prerequisite, but it leaves several parameters and the required processId unexplained. An agent would need to infer too much from bare parameter names to invoke it confidently in all cases.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry the semantic load. It clarifies the partial name/group path and exact block kind/number search modes and mentions pagination, but it does not explain processId, resourceKind, softwarePath, refreshInventory, timeoutMs, maxResults, or offset. The coverage of parameter meaning is therefore only partial for a relatively large schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: search the prepared live inventory. It also states the two search modes, partial name/group path or exact block kind/number, and the output purpose, exact identities for subsequent reads. It explicitly rules out unrelated operations such as whole-project XML export, program-body scan, navigation, and PLC access, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 makes clear when to use this tool: to search prepared live inventory and obtain exact identities for later reads. It also gives useful exclusions against whole-project XML export, program-body scan, navigation, and PLC access. It does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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