inscada_get_live_values

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and destructiveHint (safe). The description adds value by specifying the return format ({varName: {value, date}}), confirming real-time nature, and clarifying the auto-detection of project_id. 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and usage directive, second describes return type and parameter hint. No fluff, front-loaded with critical information. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema, but description provides return format. Parameters are well-described in schema. Lacks details on error handling or invalid inputs, but for a simple read tool, the information is sufficient to use correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for project_id (optional, auto-detected) but does not elaborate on variable_names or verbose beyond what the schema already provides. Adequate given complete 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 it reads LIVE real-time values of multiple variables in one call, distinguishing it from the sibling 'inscada_get_live_value' (singular) by emphasizing batch queries. The phrase 'MUST use this for batch live value queries' explicitly differentiates its scope.

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 explicitly states to use this tool for batch live value queries, implying the singular version for single variables. It also notes project_id is optional and auto-detected. No explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond the sibling, but the directive is clear enough for most use cases.

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