plc_get_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only a content hint — that unavailable operations are surfaced — but says nothing about whether results vary by environment, install state, or runtime connection.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core object of the report is front-loaded. It is slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity ("adapters" of what), but nothing is wasted.

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 and zero parameters, the structural burden is low, so the description only needs to explain purpose and timing. It covers purpose but omits when to invoke the tool or what distinguishes an "unavailable Sysmac operation" from a merely unsupported one, leaving a meaningful gap for a discovery-type tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter information is missing because none exists.

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?

"Report implemented adapters, experimental formats and unavailable Sysmac operations" gives a specific verb (report) and enumerates the resource contents, which no sibling tool covers. It is clear what kind of information comes back, though terms like "adapters" and "experimental formats" remain undefined in this 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 never states when an agent should call this versus alternatives such as plc_get_project_info or plc_ide_probe, nor any precondition (e.g., call before selecting an export format). Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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