PLC I/O map

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does not say this is a read-only static lookup, whether the data is live or a fixed schematic, whether results can change, or what the response looks like. It does disclose content scope (module assignments, relay interface, spare capacity), which is modest value, but the behavioral profile of the call remains undocumented.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary resource (I/O assignment of the line2 modules) before listing secondary content. No filler or boilerplate; the only weakness is that the trailing 'notes on spare capacity' clause adds length without operational detail.

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 one-parameter, non-required static lookup with no output schema, the description covers what data is available, which is the essential part. It is still thin on the two things an agent would want: what the 'all' default returns and whether the response is structured per-module — neither is stated anywhere in the structured fields.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: the module names A2, A3, A5 map directly to enum values, and 'relay interface to the high-pressure pump (COM_IN/COM_OUT)' plausibly maps to pump_interface while 'spare capacity' maps to spare. However 'all' (the default) and the selection semantics are never explained, and the mapping is left implicit rather than stated.

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 names a specific resource — the I/O assignment of the Elsaco PROMOS line2 modules on CAN bus 2, plus the pump relay interface and spare-capacity notes. That is far more than a restatement of the name and clearly separates it from siblings like machine_overview or get_pump_info. It lacks an explicit verb ('Returns'/'Lists'), but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer — e.g. the boundary with get_pump_info (which also touches the high-pressure pump) or machine_overview is left entirely to inference. The enumeration of contents implies it is the wiring/IO lookup, but no conditions or alternatives are named.

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