Probe Device

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it well. It defines 'reachable', enumerates all failure_class values with their meanings and remediation hints, and explains that exception responses still count as online. It does not mention side effects or timeout details, but a probe tool's behavior is largely covered.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: primary purpose first, then reachable definition, then failure classes with troubleshooting hints, then a typical usage scenario. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the return-value details do not need to be explained. The description covers the core scenario, failure taxonomy, and next-step suggestions, which is reasonably complete for a diagnostic probe. It could add more explicit parameter guidance or sibling-tool differentiation, but nothing essential is missing for calling it 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 compensate for the undocumented parameters. It indirectly adds meaning to protocol and unit by referencing 'protocol config' and 'unit/register config' in the failure-class guidance, and host/port are self-evident. However, it does not document valid protocol values, unit semantics, or parameter formatting, leaving a clear gap.

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 the tool's function: test whether a PLC can be connected to and communicated with, and provide layered attribution on failure. It is specific about the resource (PLC connectivity/communication) and the failure-class output, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as plc_read or detect_device.

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 gives a concrete when-to-use hint: when a device reports 'cannot read data', call this tool first to locate the failing layer before deciding the next step. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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