Create Direct Display output

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that by stating the scaffold is 'inactive-by-default' and includes 'safety notes', which informs the agent about default state and safety considerations. It doesn't contradict 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and notable features. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description needs to provide more context to guide correct invocation. It does articulate the high-level intent ('scaffold', 'monitor inventory', 'display maps') but lacks details on parameter meanings, configuration semantics, or expected results, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 29% (only name and parent_path have descriptions). The description does not compensate for the other five parameters. The only indirect hint is 'inactive-by-default' which subtly implies the active parameter default, but output_count, display_index, resolution_width, and resolution_height are left entirely unexplained.

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 resource ('Direct Display Out TOP scaffold'), and adds concrete scope details ('monitor inventory, display maps, and inactive-by-default safety notes'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_dome_output or setup_output.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: when you need a Direct Display Out TOP scaffold with monitor inventory and display maps. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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