pcm_cli_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool runs `export-system-info` (a read/health-check operation), and additionally reveals it lists installed connectivity packages that 'bound what IED types can be handled at all,' giving the agent useful insight into the tool's side effects and their strategic meaning. This is solid non-obvious context beyond what a bare invocation would suggest.

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?

Three sentences, tight and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second and third sentences add meaningful context (health-check role, connectivity packages). Minor inefficiency: the third sentence about connectivity packages could arguably be merged, but overall it's economical with no redundant filler.

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?

Has an output schema, so return values needn't be documented in the description. The tool is a simple parameterless probe with clear purpose, and the description covers its functional role plus the strategic implication of connectivity packages. Complete enough for an agent to decide when to call it. Could optionally mention what the output-format looks like, but the output schema handles that.

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 tool has zero parameters, making parameter semantics largely moot. With no params to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there's nothing the description needs to clarify about arguments; the description focuses its effort on purpose and behavior instead.

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 reports detected PCM600 installation and proves CLI reachability by running the project-free `export-system-info` command. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing it's the 'only command that needs no project,' clearly separating it from the many pcm_export_*/pcm_import_* siblings that require project context.

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 explicitly notes this doubles as a health check and is the only no-project command, which implicitly signals when to use it (before any project-based PCM operations). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, but the contrast with project-requiring siblings is strongly implied through the project-free framing.

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