tc_system

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only hints at behavior for 'errors' ('latest messages') and provides default values for parameters. It fails to describe side effects (e.g., resetting PLC on rescan), permission requirements, or response formats, leaving significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 with a compact structure using colons and parentheses. It conveys all actions and parameter hints without extra words. It is concise and efficient, though the density slightly reduces readability. Score 4 for being very concise with moderate clarity.

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 (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description covers the action list and parameter mappings but lacks details on each action's behavior, return values, and error handling. It is incomplete for an agent to use the tool reliably without additional context.

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 add meaning for 'netId' and 'path' parameters via parenthetical notes (e.g., 'default TIPC', 'IO device node'). However, it does not explain the 'action' enum values beyond listing them, and the parameter descriptions are fragmented. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 lists the supported actions (get_netid, set_netid, errors, rescan_plc, scan_io_boxes) and their parameter hints, making it clear what operations the tool performs. However, it lacks an explicit statement of the tool's overall purpose (e.g., 'Manage TwinCAT system settings'), so it is not a full 5, but it is specific enough for a 4.

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 versus sibling tools like nc, plc_download, or tc_link. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the action names alone.

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