project_summary

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description complements this by emphasizing the omission of 'PLC setup payloads', suggesting a lightweight, read-only overview. It adds value by clarifying the return scope (identity and tree only), which is not in the annotations. However, it does not describe other behavioral aspects like pagination or performance.

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 a single, tightly written sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, and the phrase 'without PLC setup payloads' adds precision without 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?

The tool is moderately complex (returns identity and tree) and has an output schema (which likely describes the return structure itself). The description is minimal but adequate for a read-only summary tool, though it could benefit from explaining what 'PLC setup payloads' specifically are. Given the output schema exists, the return format is not the main gap; the main gap is lack of usage context.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate for the single parameter 'project_id'. It does not provide any additional meaning beyond what the schema states (the parameter name and its type). The description fails to clarify that the project_id is used to select the project for summarization, which is critical.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'PLC identity and the program/section tree', and distinguishes it from other tools by noting it omits 'PLC setup payloads'. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the scope is clear and specific enough to differentiate from related tree/list 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_sections or list_programs. The description implies a high-level overview use case ('program/section tree'), but it does not state when this is preferable or mention any exclusions.

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