xae_links

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 that unlinked variables are enumerated alongside linked ones and why that matters, but says nothing about scope limits, permissions, or the PLC being online/attached.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the resource being reported, with no filler sentences. The trailing 'lists the unlinked ones' slightly interrupts the flow but earns its place as the diagnostic hook.

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 diagnostic framing covers the 'why'. It is still incomplete for a tool sitting among ~90 siblings: no indication of required XAE/PLC session state and no guidance on the single undocumented parameter.

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 required parameter plc_project_path, so the description bears the burden and adds nothing: no path format, no hint whether it is a filesystem path, a project name, or an XAE handle. The self-describing name is the only aid, which is thin for a low-coverage schema.

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 and output: the AT %I*/%Q* variable links of a PLC instance, plus the unlinked set. It is clear what an agent gets back, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from lookalike siblings such as proj_variables or hmi_bindings.

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?

The parenthetical 'the usual reason an output never moves' implies the diagnostic scenario (output not actuating) in which this tool is the right pick. However, it never states when to prefer it over alternatives or what prerequisites exist, so the routing guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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