tc_link

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions auto-resolution of dot-form PLC subfields, which is useful, but omits details on side effects, error conditions, permissions required, or what happens on destructive actions like unlink.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with all information front-loaded. No unnecessary words, and the structure logically groups the actions.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core actions and parameter roles but lacks details about return values (e.g., what 'resolve' returns), error handling, and any prerequisites or side effects. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully comprehensive.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description adds significant meaning. It explains the roles of parameters 'a' and 'b' for each action (e.g., a=source, b=destination for link) and the behavior when 'a' is used alone for unlink. The 'autoResolve' parameter is partially explained by the auto-resolve behavior mentioned. The action enum values are clearly defined.

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 is for managing variable links and lists three specific actions (link, unlink, resolve) with concise explanations. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, which include various PLC-related tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., nc, tc_tree). The description only explains the actions but lacks context such as prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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