Connect TUIO touch surface

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

The description discloses that the tool creates a scaffold including TUIO DAT, optional raw OSC, cursor maps, and surface maps, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe side effects such as whether existing nodes at 'parent_path' are modified, whether the operation can be safely repeated, or what the resulting scaffold structure looks like. Annotations (destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false) are not contradicted, but the description adds only partial transparency beyond them.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key components. It contains no redundancy, filler, or tangential detail—every word contributes to understanding the tool's function. Ideal for quick agent parsing.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description provides only a high-level overview. It omits details about the listening port, active state, parent path behavior, and what the scaffold actually looks like when created. While the name and schema defaults fill some gaps, an agent would still have moderate uncertainty about invocation specifics and outcomes.

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 low (29%), so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'optional raw OSC' clarifies the include_raw_osc boolean, and 'cursor maps' / 'surface maps' relate to cursor_count and surface_count. However, other parameters like listen_port and active remain without semantic explanation, and the description does not address all 7 parameters. It adds value but is incomplete.

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 identifies a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource: 'a TUIO touch-surface scaffold'. It also enumerates the key components (TUIO DAT, optional raw OSC, cursor maps, surface maps), making it clear what the tool produces and distinguishing it from sibling connection tools like 'connect_touchengine_notch' or 'create_multitouch_panel_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. It does not state prerequisites, typical scenarios, or explicitly mention any exclusions. The name and description imply use for TUIO touch surfaces, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools or clarification of when this scaffold is preferable to other input or touch setups.

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