apcmp_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and it succeeds: it states it reads only metadata sidecars, cannot access SQL Server engineering data inside the archive, and that no import occurs. It also discloses the risk of silent IED loss on import, which is critical operational context.

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?

Four paragraph breaks, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then limitations. Every sentence adds value — no filler, efficient and well-organized for an agent to quickly extract actionable intent.

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?

For a single-parameter inspection tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it covers purpose, when to use, tool limits (metadata only), and the key safety warning about import behavior. The presence of an output schema satisfies return-value documentation.

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 0% and the sole parameter 'path' is undocumented. However, the description clearly implies 'path' is the .apcmp archive file location through context, and for a single self-evident parameter with high-context prose, the schema baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't add literal param syntax details but the context strongly conveys meaning.

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 inspects a PCM600 .apcmp project archive without importing it, reports the project name, IED inventory, and connectivity package availability. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcm_import_ied or scl_summary, which operate on different resources/formats.

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?

Explicitly instructs to run BEFORE importing any .apcmp and explains why (PCM600 silently discards IEDs with unrecognized object types when connectivity packages are missing). This provides clear when-to-use guidance and warning context, exceeding what's needed for a 1-parameter tool.

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