rec_scan

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description states the tool 'writes ~/.twincat_mcp/profiles/<name>.checklist.csv' when checklist='<name>'. Creating a file on disk is an environment modification, which directly contradicts the read-only annotation. The description is otherwise rich, but the rubric requires a 1 for an annotation contradiction.

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 and mode selection are front-loaded, and nearly every clause carries new information (match rules, return contents, side effect, next step). The single dense paragraph with em-dashes and parentheticals is harder to parse than it needs to be, which keeps it from a 5.

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 an 8-parameter tool it covers return shape (counts by type/group, bytes/s estimates, suggested mode), the conditional file side effect, and the downstream call. An output schema does exist so return values need not be restated. Gaps remain: the show and max_items parameters, and the read-only annotation is not reconciled with the disclosed write.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description has to carry the parameters, and it does for most: source (runtime vs. project semantics), pattern (wildcard syntax identical to rec_start, parent/leaf match rule), cycle_ms (drives the bytes/s estimate), checklist, preselect, and prefix ('every scalar leaf under prefix'). It leaves show and max_items unexplained, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Enumerate the variables that could be recorded') and immediately explains the two operating modes: runtime symbol-table walk vs. project source-declaration walk. This lets an agent tell it apart from siblings like ads_leaves, proj_variables, and rec_list without opening any schema.

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?

It gives a selection criterion between the two sources ('project' works offline) and a follow-on workflow (write checklist, then rec_profile_save(name, from_checklist=name)). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over rec_start, rec_list, or ads_leaves, so there is no when-not guidance, but the context provided is clear.

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