plc_list_ports

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real semantics: what "available" actually means (resolved, enabled, unoccupied, including output aliases) and an explicit caveat that it does not imply hardware/build verification. That caveat is exactly the kind of nuance an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded before the availability caveat. The second sentence is dense to the point of being slightly cryptic, but every clause carries meaning.

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. However, for a 7-parameter filtered list tool with low schema coverage, the description leaves key filtering and pagination semantics unexplained, so it is only adequate rather than complete.

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 only 29%, so the description needs to compensate, and it does so well for the availability flag but poorly elsewhere. Filters like module_id, direction, and transaction_id are never explained, and the relationship between "configured" vs "observed" and those parameters is left implicit.

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 ("List ... ports") and scopes it to "configured or observed ports, types, addresses and bindings." It does not distinguish this from plausible siblings like plc_list_io or plc_list_hardware, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives among the many list_* siblings. The only implied usage cue is the "available_only" concept, which is not framed as a decision rule.

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