Detect Device

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description goes beyond by explicitly guaranteeing read-only behavior (only handshake and minimal read frames, no writes), reveals optional deep verification, and explains that identification does not guarantee access. This adds significant behavioral context beyond 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?

Description is detailed and front-loaded with purpose, but it is lengthy with multiple clauses. It covers essential details without excessive fluff, but could be more compact. Structure is logical: purpose, flow, assurances, return format.

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 complexity and output schema exists, the description covers main workflow, parameter semantics, and return behavior. It doesn't detail edge cases like host unreachable or all ports closed, but is adequate for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains deep (default true, performs minimal read verification), ports (default list of candidate ports, null likely means use defaults), timeout_ms (per-probe budget, default 0.8s), and host (target device). This adds meaning beyond the schema for all parameters.

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?

States a specific action: auto-scan ports and identify protocol for a given host. The description distinguishes it from siblings like probe_device by clarifying it is read-only and focused on identification, not probing. However, the exact protocol detection scope is implicit but clear enough.

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?

Provides detailed workflow and default ports, and clarifies the tool is for identification, not full access verification. It mentions that if S7 PUT/GET is closed, read may fail, implying use for reconnaissance. Does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like probe_device or plc_read, but context is fairly clear.

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