hmi_scan

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 detail beyond that: the root fallback chain (project.hmi_root, else project root) and the fact that .TcVIS files are what live at the fallback location, plus the kind values emitted for each source type.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and file scope, followed by the root default. Technical shorthand like '%s%PLC1.X%/s%' is compact rather than wasteful, though it slightly obscures readability.

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 explained, and the scan inputs and kinds are covered. What is missing is whether the index is persisted for later tools (e.g. hmi_bindings), whether the scan is incremental, and whether the project must be open — meaningful gaps for an indexing operation.

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 full burden for the single 'root' parameter, and it does so well by spelling out the default resolution order. It does not clarify what forms of path are accepted (relative vs absolute), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 states a specific verb ('Index') and resource ('HMI symbol bindings'), then enumerates exactly which file formats are covered (TE2000 .view/.content/.usercontrol/.json and TF1800 .TcVIS) and the kind labels produced. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tools hmi_bindings or hmi_vs_runtime, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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 explicit statement of when to run this scan versus alternatives such as hmi_bindings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage must be inferred from the file-format enumeration, which is implied context at best.

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