ads_io_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: this reads the raw process image as the task actually sees/wrote it, bypassing symbols. It does not mention port/size behavior or error conditions.

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 dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and area/offset semantics attached efficiently via punctuation. No filler, though the em-dash clause packs several ideas together at the cost of some scannability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves port and size unexplained and offers no guidance on selecting this tool over the many sibling read variants.

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 carry the load. It usefully explains 'area' (I=%IB inputs, Q=%QB outputs) and 'offset' (byte offset), functioning as an implicit enum. It adds nothing for 'port' (default 851) or 'size', leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 the specific resource (raw process image of the PLC), the areas I/Q with their %IB/%QB mapping, and the byte-offset addressing. It distinguishes itself from symbol-based reads via 'independent of symbol names,' though it does not differentiate from the close sibling ads_read_raw.

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 parenthetical '(link checks)' hints at the intended use case but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative versus ads_read, ads_read_raw, or ads_read_many. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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