pixera_recommend_markers_for_projector

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does disclose the live connection requirement and that the projector pose is read live before culling. It does not state whether the tool mutates project state, whether recommendations are persisted, or what happens if the projector or lens data is missing, leaving important behavioral traits unstated.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact definitions of key input shapes and the live-connection requirement. The structure is efficient, though the parameter detail is unevenly allocated because four parameters are omitted.

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?

This is a complex tool with eight parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage. The output schema means return values need not be explained, but missing parameter semantics, no sibling routing guidance, and limited behavioral caveats leave the definition only partially complete.

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 explain all eight parameters. It usefully describes lens fields, mesh_path formats, and mesh_transform, but omits euler_order, grazing_deg, num_markers, and do_occlusion entirely, leaving half of the parameters without semantic guidance.

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 opens with a specific three-step verb chain: read the projector pose live, cull the mesh to what it sees, and recommend marker placement. That makes the tool's purpose clear, but it does not name or contrast with nearby tools such as pixera_apply_markers, pixera_validate_marker_calibration, or pixera_plan_projection_mapping.

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?

It states the prerequisite that a live Pixera connection is required and implies this is a planning/recommendation step. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of pixera_apply_markers, pixera_validate_marker_calibration, or other marker/calibration siblings, nor when not to use it.

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