plc_ide_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the description's added value is the runtime context: it runs through the pinned adapter under normal UAC, returns solution GUIDs and process start identity, and works from the start page. The explicit exclusion of import/open/save/compile and the clarification that storage folders are IDE locations rather than archive paths are genuinely useful behavioral context. Only pagination behavior itself is left to the output schema.

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?

Front-loads the core operation in the first clause, then layers usage, exclusions, and the storage-path caveat in a compact three-sentence block. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the 'pinned runtime adapter and normal UAC' phrase is the only mildly opaque element.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value details need not be described. For a read-only, three-parameter list tool, the description covers what is returned at a high level (GUIDs, process identity), what it does not do, and the environment it runs in. No material gap remains for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 67%, with limit and offset already documented in the schema (1–200, zero-based). The description adds the framing of a 'bounded page' and ties results to a process, but does not explain the required process_id or how paging interacts with changing project lists. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the parameter work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a bounded page of persisted projects') and pins the scope to the local Sysmac IDE via the pinned runtime adapter. It also names the downstream use ('for open_existing'), which distinguishes it from sibling open/close/export tools.

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 gives implied usage through 'for open_existing' and the negative list 'Does not import, open, save or compile a project', which routes the agent away from mutation siblings. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over plc_ide_open_existing or plc_ide_probe, and no prerequisites (e.g., an IDE process must already exist) are stated.

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