Connect NFC tap bus

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnly=false) and non-destructive. The description adds some context about scaffold contents but does not disclose side effects like what happens to parent_path, whether it overwrites existing components, or what 'sanitized tap events' means at runtime. It provides minimal additional behavioral transparency.

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, focused sentence that starts with the imperative verb. It packs relevant detail without wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a 9-parameter creation tool with no output schema and many siblings, this description is too thin. It explains what the scaffold includes but omits when to use it, how parameters affect behavior, and what result to expect. An agent would need to infer most critical context from the schema and name alone.

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 only 22% (description provided for name and parent_path only). The description's terms like 'station maps' and 'adapter source' loosely hint at station_count and adapter_url but do not explain any parameter's meaning or usage. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage across 9 parameters.

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 clearly states the action: 'Create an NFC tap scaffold' with a specific verb and resource. It lists distinctive components (sanitized tap events, station maps, consent policy, adapter source, tag-privacy notes), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like create_rfid_badge_bus or create_ble_beacon_bus.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Given the large number of similar connectivity bus tools, this is a significant gap.

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