ads_discover

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the operation is a UDP broadcast on port 48899 scoped to the local network, meaning it cannot reach remote subnets and may block for the timeout window. It does not mention behavior on zero results or timeout exhaustion, which keeps 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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and the transport, followed by the returned fields and an intuitive analog. No filler or 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?

Low-complexity tool with only two optional parameters and an output schema, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The remaining gap is the lack of any workflow framing (that discovery precedes connect/route-added operations) and timeout semantics, but for a discovery tool this is close to complete.

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 description compensates only partially: 'local network' loosely gestures at the broadcast address parameter, but neither the broadcast target handling (default 255.255.255.255) nor the timeout_s semantics or units are explained. For two undocumented parameters the description should carry this load, and it does not.

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 (broadcast search for TwinCAT targets), states the transport (UDP 48899), and enumerates the payload fields returned (NetId, host name, TwinCAT version, IP). This clearly separates it from connection-oriented siblings like ads_connect/ads_ping and from the XAE-side xae_target tool, without the agent needing to open 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?

The XAE 'Broadcast Search' analogy implies this is the discovery step performed before connecting (e.g. ahead of ads_connect or ads_add_route_to_plc), but usage is only implied. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over e.g. ads_status or a direct-IP connection, nor any prerequisite/exclusion.

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