nc

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates 'returns info + children' for axis, but does not confirm read-only behavior, mention side effects, error conditions, or required permissions. The terse style leaves significant ambiguity.

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 description is extremely concise (one line) but uses cryptic phrasing and no structural elements like bullet points or separate sections. This sacrifices immediate clarity for brevity.

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?

Given no output schema and limited parameter descriptions, the description does not adequately cover behavior, return values, or error handling. For a tool with only 2 parameters and a single enum, it still leaves key details unspecified (e.g., default behavior for path in 'tasks').

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?

Description adds meaning to the action enum (tasks, axes, axis) and hints at path usage (e.g., 'path = task' for axes, 'path = full axis path' for axis). However, 0% schema coverage means it must fully compensate; the path parameter usage remains underspecified (e.g., optional vs required per action, format).

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 clearly identifies the tool as querying the 'NC motion tree' and lists three distinct actions (tasks, axes, axis) with brief explanations of each. This differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on PLC, EtherCAT, or system configuration.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tc_mapping, tc_task). The description only enumerates actions without stating prerequisites, limitations, or recommended scenarios.

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