tc_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: set_silent_mode suppresses dialogs (with version dependency), switching platform invalidates builds, parent directory must exist for save_plc_archive, and set_disabled only accepts 0/1. It does not explicitly cover authorization or side effects like idempotency, but provides substantial transparency.

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 a dense single paragraph that efficiently conveys general context first, then lists actions with details. While it is concise and front-loaded, it could benefit from structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) for easier scanning. However, every sentence adds value.

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 (10 actions, 7 parameters, no output schema or annotations), the description provides comprehensive coverage: it explains each action's behavior, parameter usage, constraints, and return format for get_disabled. Missing details like exact return types for other getters, but overall adequate for agent decision-making.

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?

The input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning in context (e.g., platform values, file as absolute path, path as tree path with ^ separators, enabled/disabled booleans, name default). It adds semantics beyond the schema's enum and type definitions.

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 states that the tool handles 'XAE engineering settings & packaging' and lists all actions (get_silent_mode, set_silent_mode, etc.). It distinguishes itself from runtime tools by explicitly noting it is offline/engineering-only and does not change runtime state directly.

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 guidance: it labels the tool as offline-only, explains that no confirm-gating is needed, and warns that switching the target platform invalidates prior build output (recommending xae_build). It also mentions that safety paths are rejected by policy for certain actions.

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