xae_plc_projects

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 by structured data. The description adds that the returned data includes tree paths and that downstream tooling depends on it, but says nothing further about behavior. With annotations carrying the load, this is adequate at a 3.

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 tight sentence with the core resource front-loaded and the prerequisite note kept in a parenthetical. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema already defined, the description supplies what an agent needs to select it. The only shortfall is naming which specific sibling tool consumes the tree paths, but the return format need not be restated given the output schema.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; per the rubric this is a baseline 4. The description appropriately adds no fictional parameter detail.

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 set (PLC projects in the TwinCAT project) and a distinguishing attribute (their tree paths), so an agent knows what it yields. The verb is implicit rather than stated ('list/retrieve'), but the scope is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named sibling xae_plc.

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 '(needed by PLCopen / boot tools)' implies a usage context — call this to obtain paths before xae_plcopen_import/export or xae_boot_project — but it never states when to use it directly or what alternatives exist. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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