plc_ide_probe

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely new behavioral context: no project is opened or compiled, and no UAC/elevation prompt is triggered — exactly the concerns an agent has before running a probe. It stops short of saying what a failed probe looks like, but that is partly covered by 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?

Two short sentences, the core action front-loaded, followed by the two side-effect guarantees that matter most. No filler, no repetition of the name or annotations.

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?

This is a simple, parameterless diagnostic with an output schema and full annotation coverage, so the short description is nearly sufficient. The only mild gap is what the probe result actually signifies and what to do if it fails.

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. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter detail for a parameterless call.

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?

"Check the local Sysmac WCF endpoint" gives a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier "direct non-elevated probe" frames it as a connectivity/diagnostic check rather than a project operation. It implicitly separates itself from the project-oriented siblings by stating no project is opened or compiled, though it never names an alternative probe or capability-check tool.

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 implies the use case (verifying the local endpoint is reachable without elevation) but never states explicitly when to reach for this versus plc_get_capabilities or plc_ide_runtime_status. The reader must infer that this is a pre-flight/environment sanity check.

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