rec_scan

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description states that with checklist='<name>' the tool 'writes ~/.twincat_mcp/profiles/<name>.checklist.csv' — a persistent filesystem side effect. The prose is otherwise honest and detailed, but this is a direct inconsistency with the declared read-only nature, so per the contradiction rule it scores 1.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and it is dense with operational detail, but the middle is a run-on with stacked parentheticals and em-dashes that a reader must parse twice. Little padding, so waste is low, but structure could be cleaner.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value narration is not required, and the description still sketches the counts-by-type/group result. However, for an 8-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, two parameters (show, max_items/truncation behavior) remain undocumented, and the read-only mismatch means an agent may mis-model side effects.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden and does well: it documents source, pattern (fnmatch on full path), cycle_ms (basis for bytes/s estimates), checklist (file written) and preselect (patterns already marked), plus prefix ('every scalar leaf under prefix'). It leaves 'show' and 'max_items' completely unexplained, which prevents a 5.

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?

Specific verb ('Enumerate') plus a precise resource (recordable variables and their per-type cost), with the two discovery modes ('runtime' walks live symbol/datatype tables, 'project' walks source declarations) spelled out. It does not name any sibling to route away from, so an agent must infer that proj_variables/ads_leaves are the read-actual-values alternatives rather than the record-planning ones.

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?

Gives clear selection context between the two 'source' modes, including the offline property of 'project', and chains the workflow explicitly ('checklist=... then rec_profile_save(name, from_checklist=name)'). No explicit when-not-to-use or naming of competing siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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