plc_compare_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's genuine addition is the epistemic caveat that hash/ZIP comparison does not prove PLC semantic equivalence, which usefully prevents overclaiming from the result; however, nothing is said about how inputs are located or what limits apply.

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?

A single compact clause with no wasted words, and the caveat is placed where it will be read. It is arguably over-compressed, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the semantic-equivalence caveat covers the main interpretive risk. Still missing are the identity/format of the two parameters and any signal about when this comparison is the right choice over plc_compare_projects.

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% — both 'before' and 'after' are bare strings with no titles beyond their names. The description does not explain that these are the two file paths being compared, nor their expected format, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names the comparison mechanism (hashes and ZIP member content), which is more specific than the bare name, but it never states what the two inputs are — presumably PLC project files — so the resource is left implicit. An agent must infer 'files' from the tool name rather than the description.

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 guidance and no named alternative, despite plc_compare_projects being an obvious sibling that would need disambiguation. The only guidance is a negative caveat about what the result does not prove, which constrains interpretation but does not route the agent.

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