Connect Pangolin Beyond

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating it is 'safety-gated' and makes 'no live-output claim,' disclosing that no live output will be produced—essential for a laser-control 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core action and important constraints. No wasted words; every part adds meaning.

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, low schema coverage (22%), and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the conceptual outcome but leaves operational details—like what the scaffold returns, how parameters affect the result, and what 'safety-gated' entails—unexplained.

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 only 22% (2 of 9 params), and the description provides no parameter-specific details. The mention of 'zone maps, cue maps, blackout notes' maps loosely to zone, cue_count, and safety_blackout, but does not clarify their types or usage. The description does not compensate for the sparse schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Create a safety-gated Pangolin Beyond laser-control scaffold' and lists key components (zone maps, cue maps, blackout notes). This distinguishes it from generic scaffold tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like create_safety_blackout_chain.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The 'safety-gated' and 'no live-output claim' hints at context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.

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