iec104_connection_info

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning that the tool 'connects' and reports status, and it discloses the structure of the returned dictionary. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: purpose, args, returns, and example. Every sentence earns its place, and the front-loaded title bracket gives an immediate safety/risk hint.

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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, parameters, and return value. It provides enough information for an agent to invoke and interpret the result without ambiguity.

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 schema provides only the param name and type, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that 'endpoint' is a config name for protocol 'iec104', is optional, and provides a concrete example. This adds meaningful semantic information beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Connect and report') and resource ('IEC-104 link status + discovered stations'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like iec104_interrogate or iec104_read_point, which focus on data operations rather than connection status.

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 provides usage context (endpoint from config, optional default) and an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The guidance is implied by its purpose, but no direct exclusions or comparisons to siblings are given.

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