proj_interface

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 value by disclosing the exact return shape (methods, properties, actions, inheritance), but says nothing about failure modes when a name is not matched, or whether inherited members are included.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then lists returned categories compactly. The colon-plus-list structure is efficient, though the dense enumeration of return contents partially duplicates what the output schema already provides.

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 the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover safety, leaving the definition mostly self-sufficient. The unresolved gap is the 'name' argument's expected form, which is the one thing an agent must get right to call the tool successfully.

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% for the single 'name' parameter. The description only implies the name refers to an FB/program; it never states the expected format (bare POU name vs. namespace-qualified path) or whether it must already exist in the project. With a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate and does so only minimally.

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 (the public interface of an FB/program) and enumerates exactly what is returned: inputs/outputs/in-out with types and comments, methods with access and signature, properties with get/set, actions, extends/implements. An agent can distinguish it from proj_get_code or proj_variables. However, it never names a sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite the crowded proj_* family (proj_get_code, proj_variables, proj_references, proj_call_graph). Usage is only implied by the resource being described.

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