Connect WebRTC browser input

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is not read-only and is open-world, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds that it creates a 'scaffold' and relies on an external signaling app, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it opens a WebRTC connection immediately, requires the signaling server to be reachable, or modifies existing components). This is partial 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, front-loaded sentence that delivers the core purpose without excessive detail. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, so the description should provide more context about what the scaffold includes, how parameters interact, and what the user can expect after creation. The single-sentence description does not explain the internal behavior or the composition of the scaffold, leaving significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 29%, the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It loosely maps to input_mode by listing 'webcam, screen, pointer, and sensor', and to signaling_url via 'external signaling app', but it leaves active, room_id, and include_data_channels unexplained. The description provides some meaning but not enough for a 7-parameter tool.

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 a specific action ('Create a browser/WebRTC input scaffold') and enumerates the data types (webcam, screen, pointer, sensor) it handles. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect_websocket_control_bus or create_control_surface, which serve different input/output purposes.

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 implies usage when the user needs to bring browser/WebRTC data (webcam, screen, pointer, sensors) into TouchDesigner, and notes the dependency on an external signaling app. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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