read_plc_values

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses connection lifecycle (opens, reads, closes) and channel format. For a read-only operation, this provides sufficient behavioral context beyond a simple 'read values'.

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 front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence contributes essential information: purpose, lifecycle, and channel format.

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?

Covers purpose, lifecycle, and parameter specifics. However, given no output schema, a brief mention of the return format (e.g., mapping channels to values) would enhance 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% (baseline 3). The description adds value by specifying the exact channel format ('ObjectName.ChannelName') and default behavior for optional parameters ('Omit to use...'), which is not present 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 clearly identifies the verb 'Read', resource 'live channel values', and scope 'from a running PLC'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'write_plc_values' and other read tools such as 'read_class_source'.

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 for reading live PLC values but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'read_class_source' or 'inspect_project'. No exclusions or when-not guidelines are provided.

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