Static-checks H3U PLC projects for missing files, multiple OUTs, cross-block writes, and unknown instructions. Does not simulate or prove logic correctness.
静态检查缺失文件、多处 OUT、跨块写入和未知指令；不是运行仿真或逻辑合格证明。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | 含唯一 HCP 索引的完整工程目录 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the specific checks performed and explicitly excludes simulation and logic proof, which is good. However, it does not state whether the operation has side effects (likely read-only, but not confirmed) or describe the output format.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary function (static checks) and adds exclusions. No wasted words; every part adds value.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it does not do. The main gap is the lack of explicit side-effect or return-value information, but given the simplicity, this is reasonably complete.
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 schema covers 100% of the parameter, describing 'project' as a complete directory with an HCP index. The description does not add additional syntax or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it performs static checks (缺失文件、多处 OUT、跨块写入和未知指令) on a project, using a specific verb 'audit' and resource 'project'. It distinguishes from simulation tools by explicitly stating what it is not, though it does not name specific siblings.
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?
It explicitly states it is 'not running simulation or logic qualification proof', giving a clear when-not-to-use condition. However, it does not reference alternative tools or provide context for when it should be chosen over siblings like project_inspect or project_diff.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.