plc_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not mention that actions like file_delete or file_upload modify or delete data, nor does it warn about potential side effects or required permissions. The description is neutral and lacks transparency about the impact of certain actions.

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, concise sentence that efficiently lists the three diagnostic categories without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.

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 that the schema fully documents all parameters and there is no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, because the tool combines multiple actions (trace, file ops, code analysis), a bit more contextual guidance on when each action applies would improve completeness, but it is not strictly required.

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 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema is fully documented, it meets the minimum standard.

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 tool runs PLC diagnostics and enumerates three categories: trace recording, file operations, and static code analysis. It is specific enough to understand the tool's primary function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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 gives a general purpose but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for using the tool.

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