pixera_validate_marker_calibration

Does 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 validation/read operation but does not state whether it is side-effect-free, what permissions are needed, or how errors are reported. The output schema may cover return values, but behavioral context remains thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its brevity is efficient, though it also contributes to the sparse coverage of usage and parameter details.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin for the tool's complexity. It names only a subset of inputs and provides no usage or behavioral context; the output schema helps with return values but does not compensate for the missing input and usage detail.

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 9 parameters. The description maps only some parameters (marker_count, coplanar, edids_set/lens_preset, reprojection_error) and omits placement, depth_varied, surface_type, and model_from_scan, leaving several inputs without semantic explanation beyond their names and defaults.

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 a specific verb and resource: validate marker-calibration parameters. The parenthetical list (count, coplanarity, EDID/lens prereqs, error) clarifies the validation scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish this validate tool from sibling validate tools such as softedge, canvas resolution, or feed mode.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pixera_recommend_markers_for_projector or pixera_run_calibration. It also omits any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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