pixera_score_projector_calibratability

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses one real trait: a live Pixera connection must exist. It also names the output shape (VQI + breakdown). However, it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, how long the scoring takes, or what happens on a failure — significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the output hint and the connection requirement. Nothing is wasted, though there is little substance to be concise about.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the tool has six parameters at 0% schema coverage, nested lens/mesh_transform objects, and no annotations. The description is far too thin for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% across six parameters, including two nested objects (lens, mesh_transform), yet the description explains only that a projector and a mesh are involved. Undocumented knobs such as grazing_deg, euler_order, and the required mesh_path are left entirely without meaning.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Score how calibratable a mesh is from a projector' names the operation and its inputs, and the '(VQI + breakdown)' parenthetical hints at the result. It does differentiate from pixera_run_calibration and pixera_recommend_calibration_method, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires a live connection'. There is no indication of when to score calibratability versus calling pixera_recommend_calibration_method or pixera_run_calibration, nor any ordering relative to those steps.

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