ads_routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the useful detail that results are parsed from a local config file rather than queried live from the PLC, which explains why results are static. It says nothing about staleness, refresh behavior, or result volume, so it adds moderate value only.

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 short sentence with zero filler, and the most important qualifier ('local static') is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse — no verb and no leading description of intent — which keeps it just below top marks.

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?

Given zero parameters, an existing output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is close to sufficient. It still leaves open how this relates to ads_add_route_to_plc and ads_discover (static file view vs. live routing table) and whether the file is re-parsed on each call.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the tool needs no arguments by scoping itself to 'this PC'.

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 resource (local static ADS routes) and discloses its provenance (StaticRoutes.xml on this PC), which distinguishes it from the write-oriented sibling ads_add_route_to_plc. It lacks an explicit verb (list/get/read), but the noun phrase is unambiguous enough that an agent knows what it retrieves.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of when to call this versus ads_add_route_to_plc, ads_discover, or ads_status, and no preconditions (e.g., whether the ADS connection must be live or whether 'static' excludes dynamically discovered routes).

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