wf_release_check

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

Annotations cover safety (idempotent, non-destructive) but leave readOnlyHint=false, which reads as 'this mutates something.' The description resolves that by scoping the mutation claim: 'Writes nothing to the PLC,' and lists the verifications performed. It still omits prerequisites (connected target? open solution?) and whether checks fail-fast or all report.

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, and the operative purpose plus check list are front-loaded before the safety note. Optimal density for a composite tool.

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 not be described, and all three params are optional. The description covers what is checked and the PLC write-scope, which is most of what an agent needs; only environmental prerequisites for running the check are left implicit.

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 must carry parameter meaning. The checklist items map loosely onto the params (build result -> run_build, lint -> lint_rules, source-vs-runtime/TcUnit on target -> plc_project_path), giving inferable semantics, but defaults (run_build=true) and the null semantics of lint_rules/plc_project_path are never explained.

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 specific verb+resource+scope: a go/no-go release check, then enumerates the exact signals it aggregates (git changes, build result, lint, source-vs-runtime, TcUnit on target, task health). Very clear what it does, though it never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling checks it composes (tcunit_run, proj_vs_runtime, proj_lint).

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?

"Go/no-go before a deploy" gives an unambiguous usage trigger. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. running individual checks instead), but the context is clear enough to select the tool correctly.

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