inscada_project_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is checked (scripts, connections, etc.), but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the annotation context. No contradiction 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently summarizes the tool's purpose and scope. No redundant or extraneous wording.

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 read-only status checking tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's function and the components it covers. It could potentially mention the return format or need for project_id validity, but given the annotations and low complexity, it is mostly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (project_id with description 'Project ID'), so the schema alone adequately documents the parameter. The description does not add further meaning about the parameter, such as format or source, thus meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource as 'project runtime status' with an enumerated list of components (scripts, connections, alarm groups, data transfers, reports). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inscada_connection_status or inscada_script_status which focus on individual aspects.

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 the tool is used for a comprehensive status check of multiple project runtime components, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus more specific siblings (e.g., inscada_script_status for scripts only). There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance.

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