Create data source

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

Annotations already indicate not read-only and not destructive. The description adds value by explaining the output structure: numeric fields become channels on a Null CHOP (named per key) for binding, raw text on a Null DAT. It also notes that osc/serial only produce values when a sender/device is present. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, consisting of two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the main purpose and peer tools. The second sentence details each kind's behavior and output structure. No superfluous words.

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's complexity (10 parameters, 4 kinds), no output schema, and annotations that don't cover outputs, the description is remarkably complete. It covers output structure, offline behavior, live data conditions, and the binding mechanism for other tools. All aspects are addressed.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'fields' become channels for binding, that json/csv without a url still cooks from a static sample, and that osc/serial require a sender/device. This extra context helps the agent understand parameter implications.

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 tool's purpose: 'Ingest live external data onto a binding-ready channel/table.' It identifies itself as the input counterpart to 'create_data_visualization' and 'bind_to_channel', distinguishing it from siblings. The description specifies the supported data kinds (json/csv, osc, serial) and their behaviors.

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 explicitly frames the tool as the input counterpart to two sibling tools, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It details each kind's use case (poll URL, listen on UDP, read device) and includes offline behavior for json/csv. This helps the agent select the appropriate tool among the many sibling tools.

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