tc_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly marks read actions as 'unguarded — a transient search trigger, never persists a route' and write actions as 'GUARDED, require confirm, default NO-OP'. It explains side effects (route changes take effect in engineering project), build dependencies, and default timeout behavior. No contradictions or omissions.

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 dense and well-organized into READ vs WRITE sections with bullet-like formatting. Every sentence adds value. It is slightly longer than necessary due to inline parameter lists, but this is justified by the need to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. The front-loading with the overall purpose is effective.

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 tool's complexity (16 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, 24 siblings), the description covers critical contextual completeness: it explains the effect of operations, guard mechanism, build dependencies, action-parameter mapping, and scope limitation (config/engineering-side only). Return values are described inline for read actions. An agent has sufficient information to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by parameterizing each action in natural language (e.g., for add_route: 'remoteName, remoteNetId, one of remoteIpAddr|remoteHostName; optional userName/password/noEncryption/localName'). It explains the role of timeoutMs for broadcast_search and confirm for writes. A few parameters like host, name, netId are mentioned but not fully syntax-described for all actions; however, enough meaning is added to guide the agent.

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 explicitly states the tool 'ADS routes via the System Manager TIRR (Routes) node' and distinguishes between READ and WRITE operations with specific actions (list, broadcast_search, search_host, add_route, add_project_route). It is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly differentiates from sibling tools which cover other TwinCAT domains.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance for each action, including guard requirements for writes (confirm='ALLOW_TWINCAT_ROUTE_WRITE'), build prerequisites for search_host, and a clear note that route changes affect the project but not auto-activation. It also states what the tool does NOT do ('Nothing here targets the safety system'). This leaves no ambiguity for the agent.

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