read_plc_registers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'fetches' and 'real-time' which imply a read operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, error handling for invalid PLC IDs, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the key information (purpose and examples) without any fluff. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is adequate but lacks details on behavior for invalid inputs or how to obtain the list of valid PLC IDs. It does not explain the output format beyond mentioning metrics.

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%, but the description compensates by providing example PLC IDs ('PLC_ASSEMBLY_01', 'PLC_PACKAGING_02'), adding value to the parameter semantics. However, it does not specify format or enumeration constraints.

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 fetches real-time sensor metrics (RPM, PSI, Temperature, Vibration, Status) for a factory PLC, with specific example IDs. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like get_predictive_maintenance_report and get_energy_consumption.

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 for real-time sensor data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where other tools are better suited.

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