hmi_runtime

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

Annotations only supply openWorldHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the concrete side effects of start (publishes the project, copies webroot, spawns the DataService) and what comes back (an HTTP URL). It stops short of stating whether stop tears down the spawned process, how port conflicts are handled, or what status reports, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste: the action scope leads, the side effects follow, and the return value closes. Nothing is repeated from the schema and nothing extraneous is included.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers the return value (an accessible HTTP URL) and the side effects of the mutating actions, which is the main thing an agent needs for a four-parameter runtime-control tool. Thin annotations (openWorldHint only) leave room for more on failure modes and stop semantics, keeping it from a 5.

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 100% with an enum on action and defaults documented for debugPublish and publishFirst, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description adds process context (that start triggers publish and webroot copy) but no parameter-level syntax or default behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 states specific verbs (start, stop, check) against a specific resource (the local HMI web simulation, named internally as LasalVISUDataService), and the word 'HMI web simulation' distinguishes it from the sibling lars_runtime. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 hints at the use case ('for testing via Playwright MCP or opening in a browser'), which implies the intended context, but it never states when to choose this over deploy_all, lars_runtime, or the other runtime/deploy siblings, and gives no prerequisites or exclusion conditions. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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