ads_task_stats

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 useful context beyond that — the underlying SystemInfoVarList source and that timing is averaged over `samples` — but says nothing about how sampling blocks, cost of the read, or any permissions.

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, front-loaded with the resource and source path, followed by the metric list. Every clause is informative, though the em-dash tail slightly overloads one sentence.

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 no explanation, and read-only annotations cover safety. However, with 0% schema coverage the three parameters are not fully described, which is a real gap for an agent trying to tune sampling behavior.

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 carries the burden, yet it only mentions `samples` (execution time over `samples`) and hints at `task_index` via the [n] notation. `interval_ms` is never explained, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 resource (PLC task timing) and enumerates exactly what it returns: cycle time, last/min/max/mean execution time, load %, and exceeded-counter delta. The parenthetical source path and the 'FB's cost on the real-time task' framing make the intent concrete, though it does not name or contrast a sibling profiling tool.

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 rather than stated: measuring a function block's real-time cost suggests a profiling context, but there is no when-to-use, when-not, or alternative (e.g. wf_fb_profile, rec_stats) named. An agent must infer the scenario.

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