tcunit_run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds substantial context beyond that: it activates a configuration on the target, requires a confirmation token, is refused before activation when GVL_Param_TcUnit.xUnitEnablePublish=FALSE, and stops waiting when the PLC reports FALSE (D40). That is real operational detail the annotations do not carry.

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 pipeline is front-loaded in the first sentence and the safety/prerequisite caveats follow in priority order. It is dense and jargon-heavy ('boot project autostart+generate', 'D40') but every clause carries information; little is wasted.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description rightly does not explain return values and instead covers prerequisites, confirmation, and failure mode. However, for an 8-parameter destructive tool at 0% schema coverage, the undocumented optional flags leave the definition short of complete for correct invocation.

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% for 8 parameters and the description only addresses two of them indirectly: plc_project_path's origin and the confirm_token flow. It says nothing about disable_io, save_first, skip_build, timeout_s, remote_result_path, or allow_target_mismatch, so an agent must guess at the majority of the parameter surface from bare titles and defaults.

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?

It enumerates the exact pipeline this tool executes (save → build → boot project generate → activate → restart → delete old result → wait → parse), which is a specific multi-step verb sequence rather than a restatement of the name. This lets an agent distinguish it from tcunit_scaffold (creates a scaffold) and tcunit_results (reads results) 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?

The description names the required confirmation flow (tc_request_confirmation(action='tcunit_run', target=<NetId XAE targets>)) and the source of the required argument (plc_project_path from xae_plc_projects), giving clear context for invoking it. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming tcunit_results as the read-only alternative, so it is clear-but-not-exhaustive.

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