Plecs Instances

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description is not the primary safety carrier. It does add that the active instance is flagged in the result, which is a useful behavioral note, but says nothing about enumeration scope, staleness, or whether the list is discoverable vs. configured.

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 no filler, and the most important fact (this process's endpoints, active one marked) is front-loaded. It is slightly cryptic in its use of "endpoints" rather than "instances," which costs a point.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, and zero params means no input ambiguity. What remains missing is the relational context — how this list relates to plecs_connect and when an agent should consult it — which is the only real gap for such a simple tool.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies.

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?

"Known PLECS endpoints for this server process" conveys the resource (endpoints/instances) but omits an explicit verb like "list" and never distinguishes it from siblings such as plecs_connect, plecs_webserver, or plecs_overview. An agent can guess it enumerates instances, but the name/title already said that.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives — notably plecs_connect, which plausibly selects among the very instances this tool lists. The parenthetical about the active instance being flagged is output detail, not usage guidance.

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