plc_ide_runtime_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description adds useful context: the UAC requirement, the need for an explicit PID, and an explicit scope boundary that it does not save, export or compile. It also limits scope to the active local instance. It does not discuss failure behavior when no active instance exists.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the read action and its scope, then prerequisites, then downstream use. Tight and purposeful, though 'pinned runtime adapter' is unexplained jargon that may not land with every agent.

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, the description needn't describe return values, and it does cover prerequisites, non-goals and the handoff to rebuild. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens if no active Sysmac instance exists for the given PID.

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% for the single required process_id, so the schema adds nothing beyond an integer named 'Process Id'. The description compensates by clarifying that this is the explicit Sysmac PID, which tells the agent where the value must come from rather than leaving it as a generic process id.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it reads the active local Sysmac solution/controller identities, rebuild availability and file-mode state. That is concrete enough for an agent to know this is a status/introspection read rather than a mutation, and 'through the pinned runtime adapter' narrows the source of truth.

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?

It states a prerequisite ('Requires normal Windows UAC and explicit Sysmac PID') and a downstream use ('Use its process start identity and GUIDs for rebuild'), which implicitly places this before plc_ide_rebuild_active. It never names an alternative outright or says when not to call it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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