tc_module

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers detailed behavioral traits: lists return structure, explains create error handling (ghost child cleanup), warns that XPath names for enable_symbols are unverified, and describes the guarded nature of set_context. All mutation effects are clearly stated.

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 long but well-structured: general scope first, then each action with its own details, followed by a caveat and cross-reference. While some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating the no-runtime-transition warning), the length is justified by the tool's multi-action nature. Slightly verbose for a single tool definition.

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 the high parameter count (13), low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides extensive context: return shape for list, error behavior for create, usage order for enable_symbols, and the guarded guard for set_context. However, return structures for get_xml, set_xml, enable_symbols, and set_context are only implied, leaving minor ambiguity for an agent.

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 only 15%, meaning the JSON schema provides almost no parameter context. The description compensates fully: explains the 'by' and 'id' semantics for create, describes 'path', 'xml', 'before', 'confirm', 'taskObjectId', 'contextId', and the boolean flags for enable_symbols. Much more detail than the schema.

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 target resource ('TcCOM module objects under TIRC^TcCOM Objects') and enumerates specific actions (list, create, get_xml, etc.), all of which are distinct from sibling tools. It distinguishes itself from tc_link by directing DataArea wiring to that sibling.

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?

Explicitly states config-time-only usage and what the tool does NOT do ('no INIT/PREOP/SAFEOP/OP transitions', 'nothing here activates config, downloads, or touches the runtime/safety system'). Provides alternative for DataArea symbol wiring via tc_link, and warns about set_context requiring a confirm flag.

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