inscada_api

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint, openWorldHint), the description adds key behavioral details: non-GET require confirmation, frame variable retrieval process, SVG requirements, and animation prop rules. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by structured rules. While detailed, it maintains relevance and avoids redundancy with schema. Could be slightly more concise but still efficient.

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 the tool's generic nature, the description adequately covers usage boundaries, key rules, and integration hints. No output schema exists, so return format is not specified, which is acceptable for a flexible HTTP tool.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, offering examples like path_params format and query_params array explosion, but these are implied in schema descriptions.

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 the tool sends generic HTTP requests to the inSCADA REST API, accessing any /api/ endpoint. It distinguishes from dedicated sibling tools by advising to use them when available.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use dedicated tools for known endpoints and only use this for endpoints without a dedicated tool. Also notes that non-GET requests require user confirmation, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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