P&ID: Equipment List

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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context: data is derived from pid_graph rather than live entities, the drawing is untouched, and csv_path is the sole file written. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure annotations don't capture, and it usefully qualifies the read-only hint.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the returned content, followed by the side-effect constraint. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With an output schema present, return structure need not be described, and all three parameters are covered by the schema. The definition is sufficient for correct invocation; only the lack of selection guidance against sibling P&ID tools leaves a small gap.

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%, so scope, csv_path and tolerance are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the existence of the CSV write path and does not explain scope values or tolerance units beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: enumerate every equipment, valve and connector node with ports and incoming line counts. That is clearly distinct from siblings like pid_graph (the source data) or pid_symbol_list, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not guidance and no alternatives are named. The note that rows come from `pid_graph` gives provenance, but an agent still has to infer whether to call this versus pid_line_list, pid_instrument_index, or pid_graph for a given question.

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