proj_vs_runtime

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 substantive context beyond annotations by explaining the exact mismatch classes it reports and their likely causes (not compiled, not activated, optimised away, stale boot project, library internals).

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-load the core operation and then give the usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. But with two parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description omits any parameter guidance, leaving an invocation gap that the agent cannot fill from the provided structured data.

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% and neither parameter (scope, max_items) is documented in the schema. The description does not explain what scope filters, how it interacts with programs/GVLs, or what max_items controls, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (cross-check) and resource (source vs running PLC), and enumerates the exact mismatch categories it detects. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like proj_variables, ads_list_symbols, and hmi_vs_runtime, which handle single-side listing or different runtime comparisons.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: 'Use after a deploy to prove the target runs this source.' However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving that inference to the agent.

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