tc_system

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to indicate anything about side effects (e.g., set_netid is a write, rescan_plc may disrupt bus), permissions needed, error behavior, or synchronous vs asynchronous execution. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 single line that crams multiple actions with parenthetical notes without clear structure. It is underspecified and cryptic, wasting the opportunity to inform. Conciseness should serve clarity, not replace it.

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 has 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or which parameters are required per action. It fails to meet even minimal completeness for a multi-action system tool.

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 mentions 'path' and 'netId' but does not explain their types, formats, or which actions require them. The action enum values are listed inline, but 'errors' and 'scan_io_boxes' are described in a confusing way (e.g., 'IO device node' is unclear). The description adds minimal clarity beyond 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 attempts to list multiple actions but does so in a fragmented, ambiguous way. It reads as a mix of subcommands and notes (e.g., 'netId', 'errors (latest messages)') without a clear overall statement that this tool dispatches system management operations based on the 'action' parameter. The purpose is unclear and requires inference.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like 'tc_ethercat' or 'tc_link'. There is no explanation of prerequisites, context, or what each action is typically used for. The agent is left to guess usage cases.

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