plc_get_project_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the state requirement ('opened project') and the notable behavior that unknown coverage is reported explicitly, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it says nothing about cost, latency, or failure modes when no project is open.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core resource list comes first and the scoping condition last. The phrase 'explicit unknown coverage' is slightly opaque and could be clearer, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tool has only one simple parameter with no nesting. The description covers what is read and the precondition for reading it, leaving only minor gaps around error behavior when no project is open.

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%, but there is only one parameter, project_id, whose title is self-explanatory. The description's reference to an 'opened project' is the only added semantic hint, tying the ID to an already-open session; no format or identifier-source detail is given, so this is at the baseline level.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the resources returned: controller metadata, object counts, and unknown coverage. It clearly differs from sibling listing tools such as plc_list_pous or plc_list_tasks, though it does not explicitly name a competing alternative.

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 phrase 'for an opened project' implies the prerequisite that a project must already be open (presumably via plc_open_project), but this is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-another-tool guidance.

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