tc_session_report

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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by disclosing the data sources that feed the report and, importantly, the side effect and destination of the operation (~/.twincat_mcp/reports/<ts>.md, overridable via out_path). The only tension is that it creates a file while readOnlyHint=true, but the write is a report artifact rather than a mutation of the controlled TwinCAT system, and the description discloses it plainly.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the deliverable front-loaded and the output location second. The middle clause ('mode changes, writes, deploys and other mutating calls from the audit log, recordings, snapshots and dumps produced') is a dense noun pile that takes a re-read to parse.

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?

With an output schema present, return-shape explanation is not required, and the annotations already declare the safety profile. The description covers what is produced, what it summarizes, and where it is written, which is enough for a one-optional-parameter reporting tool; only the precise accepted form of out_path is unstated.

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% and the single parameter out_path is undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the burden. '(or out_path)' tells the agent the parameter overrides the default timestamped path, which is the meaningful semantic the schema lacks; a truly detailed description would name the accepted path form (absolute vs relative).

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 concrete verb and artifact (produces a Markdown handover report of this session) and enumerates the content it aggregates: mode changes, writes, deploys, other mutating calls, recordings, snapshots and dumps. It is clearly a report generator, distinguishable from tc_audit_tail (raw tail) or exp_report (experiment results), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'handover of this session' implies the use case (end-of-session summarization), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no pointer to alternatives such as tc_audit_tail or tc_doctor for related diagnostic views. Usage is left to inference.

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