plc_project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses many behaviors: guarded actions require confirm, default to no-op for generate_boot_project, online command envelope is UNVERIFIED, reset_* need prior login, install:true mutates local repository, subType 0 copy/1 move/2 use-in-place. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether these operations have side effects on runtime or persistence.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with context: tree path syntax and node significance first, then action list. Each action is compactly described with parameters in parentheses. However, the paragraph is long (over 20 lines) and could benefit from line breaks or bullet points for readability.

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?

Given the complexity (16 parameters, 9 actions, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all actions, parameter defaults, node distinctions, guarded behavior, online command specifics, and scope exclusions. No major gaps identified for project lifecycle tasks.

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 only 6%, so description must compensate. It defines parameter semantics for all 9 actions inline, e.g., 'create_from_template (name, template, before?, save?)' with plain-English explanation. It explains special defaults like 'treePath? = ROOT' and 'treePath? = INSTANCE' for different actions. However, some parameters like 'before', 'save', 'selection' lack detailed specs on their effects.

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?

Description clearly specifies verb+resource: 'PLC (IEC) project lifecycle on the open solution.' It lists all 9 actions with specific purposes, distinguishing each (e.g., create vs open vs info vs online). The description differentiates from siblings like plc_download and plc_pou by focusing on project-level lifecycle actions.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Actions:' enumerate all operations. Provides critical context like node matters (ROOT vs INSTANCE), guarded actions requiring confirm='ALLOW_PLC_DOWNLOAD', and defaults (e.g., default no-op for generate_boot_project, default treePath for info and set_boot_flags). The description also states out-of-scope: 'Safety projects are deliberately out of scope.'

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