tc_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: config-only, no confirm token needed, runtime activation needed later, TISC untouched, caveat about unconfirmed tag names, unit conversions (cycleTimeUs to 100ns ticks), and mutual exclusion of typed fields vs xml escape hatch. However, it does not cover authorization needs or error handling, which prevents a perfect score.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then lists actions with their parameter details. Every sentence provides essential information, but it could be better structured (e.g., bullet points or sections) to improve readability without losing content. Still, it is appropriately concise for the complexity.

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 19 parameters, 10 actions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all actions, parameter semantics, special behaviors (e.g., ConsumeXml, unit conversions, caveats), and structural context (tree paths with ^ separators). The only minor gap is lack of error handling or return value description, but the absence of an output schema makes this acceptable.

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 schema description coverage is only 5%, but the description compensates nearly fully. It explains the meaning and constraints of many parameters: withImage default true, cycleTimeUs conversion (us to 100ns ticks), priority range 0-255, affinity as TwinCAT hex token or named CPU masks, and the xml escape hatch being mutually exclusive with typed fields. This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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 states the tool manages RT tasks under TIRT, RT-core settings under TIRS, and linked tasks under TIPC. It lists specific actions and distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing specific subsystems (TIRT, TIRS, TIPC) and noting it is config-only with no confirm token needed, which is unique among sibling tools like tc_system or tc_tree.

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 implies usage through its detailed action list but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tc_tree or tc_system). It mentions that runtime needs a later activate/restart and that TISC (safety) is untouched, but no direct comparison or when-not guidance is provided.

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