tcunit_run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real context by spelling out the multi-stage side effects (activation of a configuration, autostart generation, restart, result deletion) and labeling it destructive-class. It leaves the meaning of the confirm_token / allow_target_mismatch gating unexplained, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences plus a trailing note; the destructive nature and the origin of the required parameter are front-loaded. It is economical for a complex operation, though the arrow-chain is terse enough that a reader may need a beat to parse it.

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 values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the 0%-coverage parameters and the missing when-to-use steering leave gaps for a mutation tool with seven inputs and a confirmation flow.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only clarifies the origin of plc_project_path. It says nothing about timeout_s, disable_io, skip_build, confirm_token, remote_result_path, or allow_target_mismatch, leaving over half the surface undocumented.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Full TcUnit cycle') and enumerates the actual pipeline (build → boot project autostart+generate → activate → restart → delete old result → wait for xUnit file → parse), which lets an agent distinguish it from tcunit_results and tcunit_scaffold without opening a 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 implies the trigger context ('Full TcUnit cycle') and tells the agent where the required parameter comes from ('plc_project_path from xae_plc_projects'), but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or any exclusion against the sibling tcunit_results / tcunit_scaffold tools. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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