get_plc_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description clearly indicates this is a read-only query operation. It discloses the use of saved connections as fallback. However, it doesn't specify potential error conditions or return format, which would be helpful but not critical for a simple state query.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behavior. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 low complexity of a state query tool and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It could mention that no changes are made, but the verb 'Query' implies that. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Both parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful context by explaining that omitting parameters uses the project's saved connection, which clarifies the optional behavior beyond the basic names.

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 the verb 'Query' and the resource 'runtime state of a PLC', with examples of states (Running, Stopped, Offline). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_plc and stop_plc, which perform actions rather than queries.

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 description explains the fallback behavior for connection parameters, indicating when to omit them. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the sibling context (e.g., start_plc, stop_plc) provides implicit guidance that this is for state inspection only.

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