control_plc

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

The description discloses the additional behavior of pinging the target PLC before start/stop. However, it does not describe error handling or side effects, which would be expected without annotations.

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 concise sentences, with the primary action stated first and the additional behavioral detail in the second sentence. No unnecessary content.

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?

The tool is simple with a single action parameter, and the description covers the core functionality. It doesn't specify return values, but given no output schema, that is not a major gap.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all parameters, and the tool description does not add further semantic context beyond what is already in the 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 uses a specific verb ('Start, stop, or query') and a clear object ('PLC runtime state'), making it distinct from sibling tools that deal with values, diagnostics, or project management.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like lasal_status or plc_values. The ping note is more of a behavioral detail than a usage guideline.

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