ethercat_slave_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a return format and risk tag, but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The openWorldHint is not explained.

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 concise: a one-line summary, followed by arg descriptions, return dictionary, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and the summary is front-loaded with the risk tag and purpose.

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?

Given no output schema and medium complexity, the description provides a detailed return structure covering endpoint, slave identity, config, sync managers, FMMUs, and OD summary. It lacks explanations of SM/FMMU semantics but provides an example, making it reasonably 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining 'slave' as a zero-based index from ethercat_slaves and 'endpoint' as an endpoint name from config. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and default.

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 clearly states it details one slave's identity, SM/FMMU config, and OD summary. It uses a specific verb 'Detail' and resource 'one slave', distinguishing it from sibling tools like ethercat_slaves (list slaves) and ethercat_read_sdo (read SDO).

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 usage after obtaining a slave list from ethercat_slaves, as it mentions 'from ethercat_slaves'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ethercat_read_sdo or ethercat_read_pdo, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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