Sum estimated latency across camera, key, render, stream, and display stages, then compare against a target to reveal live-booth bottlenecks and timing gaps.
Sum estimated latency per stage of a live booth (camera, key, render, stream, display) against a target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stages_ms | Yes | ||
| target_ms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a pure estimation/comparison, but never states that it is side-effect free and non-destructive, that it measures nothing real ('estimated'), or what happens when a stage is absent or the total exceeds target — meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.
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?
A single dense sentence with the computation and the comparison target front-loaded; there is no filler. It is slightly crammed, packing stage enumeration and target comparison without any visual separation.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage over a nested-object parameter, the description should do more. It conveys the inputs conceptually but never says what comes back (per-stage breakdown, total, pass/fail against target), leaving the agent to guess the result shape.
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 coverage is 0% with a nested free-form object, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: the parenthetical stage names (camera, key, render, stream, display) hint at expected keys for stages_ms, which the schema's additionalProperties does not convey. However units beyond the parameter name, the target_ms default of 100, and whether keys are arbitrary or fixed remain unstated.
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?
Names a specific verb ('sum') and resource (estimated latency per stage), and enumerates the concrete stages (camera, key, render, stream, display), which is far more than a restated title. It is clearly distinct from every sibling (probe, chroma_key, colmap_solve, etc.), but it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of them, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions; nothing tells the agent when to reach for this versus probe or composite_preview. The only cue is the implied planning/design context of a 'live booth', which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.