plc_list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect behavior are covered structurally. The description adds that results include associated programs, which is useful return-content context, but says nothing about pagination limits, ordering, or whether the project must be 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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a four-parameter paginated list tool.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a list tool with limit/offset and an opaque transaction_id, the description omits pagination behavior and parameter meaning, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 50%: limit and offset are documented in the schema, but project_id and transaction_id carry no descriptions anywhere, and the description mentions no parameters at all. In particular it gives no hint about what transaction_id means in the context of a read-only list, which is the least self-explanatory field.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('task metadata and associated programs') scoped to 'the project', which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings such as plc_list_pous or plc_list_variables. It stops short of naming an explicit sibling or boundary case, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 exclusion of alternatives (e.g., when to enumerate tasks versus programs or POUs), and no mention of prerequisites like a valid project context. The usage is only inferable from the verb 'Read' plus the project scope.

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