ct_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosure. It only states 'Write counters to PLC', omitting behavioral details such as whether the operation is destructive, irreversibility, permission requirements, or return value format. The output schema exists but its content is unknown; the description adds no transparency beyond the basic action.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. No extraneous words or redundant information are present. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (write operation with 2 parameters) and its position among 18 sibling tools, the description lacks essential context. It does not mention connection requirements, data format restrictions, common failure scenarios, or how this tool differs from other write tools. The existence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the missing high-level context.

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 the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning, such as value ranges, formatting rules, or relationships between parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already covers the parameter semantics.

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 'Write counters to PLC' clearly states a specific verb (Write) and resource (counters to PLC). It distinguishes from other write tools by specifying the data type (counters), though it does not elaborate on what counters are. Among siblings like ab_write and db_write, the resource name is the primary differentiator.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ct_read or other write tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., PLC connection), data format constraints, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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