tc_tree

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

The description discloses some behavioral traits like path separators and that get_xml returns raw XML, set_xml modifies parameters, focus is best-effort. However, it omits details on error handling, side effects, or destructive actions like delete being irreversible. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden but is only partially transparent.

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 sentence that efficiently packs the path format and a list of actions with brief descriptions. It is front-loaded with essential information but would benefit from bullet points for 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 (10 actions, 10 parameters), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values for most actions (except get_xml), does not cover all parameters, and lacks output schema or additional context. A more thorough description is needed for agent use.

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 description adds meaning for a few parameters (e.g., path uses ^ separators, create requires name+subType, import/export uses file) but leaves many parameters unexplained (xml, before, createInfo, reconnect, newName). With schema coverage at only 10%, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 states the tool is for TwinCAT tree items and lists specific actions (get, children, exists, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tc_system or xae by focusing on tree operations. However, it could be more explicit about what 'tree items' are.

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 alternatives among the sibling tools. It implicitly covers tree operations but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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