list_pous

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the returned scope includes programs, function blocks, and functions, but does not disclose additional behavior such as error handling, path validation, or output shape beyond what annotations already imply.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It states exactly what the tool does in minimal space.

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 listing tool with only one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks parameter-level guidance and does not clarify how project_path should be provided, leaving some room for interpretation.

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%, and the description does not explain the project_path parameter at all. The schema's title 'Project Path' gives basic meaning, but the description adds no value about expected path format or whether it must be absolute, relative, or point to a specific file.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('programs, function blocks, and functions in an OpenPLC project'), clearly indicating what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_project_structure, but the resource focus is specific enough to allow an agent to distinguish it.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_structure or get_server_info. The description implies a use case but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when another sibling would be more appropriate.

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