plc_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention reading/writing live values and automatic type coercion, but it does not disclose side effects of writes, permission requirements, or error behavior. It is not contradictory, but it is not deeply transparent.

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 brief, well-structured, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail while still covering key operational constraints and parameter semantics.

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 description gives enough context for typical usage: it specifies the operating context (running PLC), the channel naming format, the read/write distinction, and type handling. Since there is no output schema, the absence of return format details is acceptable, though more error handling context would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% and descriptions add helpful context beyond the schema, such as 'read only', 'write only', the format for channel paths, and behavior when lcp_path or connection are omitted. The type coercion note clarifies how string values are interpreted.

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's purpose with a specific verb pair ('Read or write') and resource ('live channel values on a running PLC'). It also defines the channel naming format, distinguishing it from broader or more general PLC 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 implies usage through the read/write action and 'running PLC' context, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when this tool should be chosen over siblings like plc_diagnostics or control_plc. Guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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