Connect Xsens MVN mocap

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which align with 'Create' in the description. The description adds details about the scaffold's contents, but it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing nodes, required permissions, or connection behavior beyond the generic creation act.

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 lists key features compactly. Every listed element (ingest protocols, mapping, tables, notes) adds meaningful value without redundancy or fluff.

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 and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns or what the scaffold looks like operationally. It lists the scaffold's components but lacks details on prerequisites, defaults, or expected outcomes, leaving it adequate but not thorough 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?

Schema coverage is only 22% (only name and parent_path have descriptions). The description mentions 'OSC/UDP/TCP ingest' and 'coordinate-space notes', which map to source_mode and coordinate_space parameters, adding some meaning. However, it does not explain parameters like actor_count, segment_count, receive_port, server_host, or active, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('Xsens MVN mocap scaffold'), then enumerates distinguishing features (OSC/UDP/TCP ingest, actor/segment mapping, normalized skeleton tables, coordinate-space notes). This clearly sets it apart from sibling mocap tools.

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 for Xsens MVN integration through its feature list, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., OptiTrack, other mocap bridges) or any exclusions. It is an implied usage context, not an explicit guideline.

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