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 real value beyond that by explaining the causal categories behind each mismatch (not compiled / not activated / optimised away, stale boot project, library internals) and noting that roots_not_on_target carries a cause, which helps an agent interpret results.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the first sentence is a long run-on with three nested parentheticals, which slows parsing. Information is dense and largely earns its place, yet could be split for clarity.

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 described, and the purpose/usage story is complete. However, for a tool with two undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves a real gap about how to scope the cross-check.

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 of the two parameters is mentioned in the description. 'scope' (presumably a program/GVL filter) and 'max_items' are left entirely undefined, so an agent gets no guidance on how to narrow the comparison or bound output.

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 verb ('cross-check') and both resources (source project vs running PLC), and enumerates exactly what discrepancies it surfaces: declared-but-not-online, online-but-not-declared, and roots_not_on_target. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it never names the obviously related hmi_vs_runtime or ads_list_symbols to sharpen the contrast.

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?

'Use after a deploy to prove the target runs this source' gives a clear triggering context. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or naming alternative tools (e.g. ads_list_symbols) for related symbol questions.

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