ads_status

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 adds real behavioral context beyond that: what the composite contains and how the single-port mode differs, including a mapping of well-known port numbers to their services.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the composite behavior, then the port override with concrete examples. No filler, and each clause adds usable information.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the read-only nature. The description covers the composite/single-port duality and port semantics adequately, though it omits guidance on when to prefer this over the dedicated sibling status tools.

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 coverage is 0% on the single port parameter, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: default null yields the composite, a supplied port yields only that port's ADS state, and example values (852 PLC2, 500 NC, 10000 system service, 65535 EtherCAT master 1) clarify intended input.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (composite ADS status) and enumerates the fields returned (connection, PLC runtime state, TwinCAT system mode, device name/version). It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like ads_plc_state or ads_system_mode despite naming overlapping data.

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?

Usage is implied: call with no port for the composite, call with port=N for a single-port ADS state. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many status siblings (ads_plc_state, ads_system_mode, ads_ping), leaving routing to inference.

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