Create feedback tunnel

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

The description discloses key behaviors: creation of a new baseCOMP, exposure of controls, use of built-in noise seed, and the return of node paths and preview image. It adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by detailing the exact topology and returned elements.

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 long paragraph that front-loads the main purpose but includes some redundancy (e.g., 'four audio-bind-ready controls' are mentioned but not all listed). It could be more concise while preserving essential details.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, parameter interplay, return values, and example topology. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites, but the openWorldHint annotation and overall coverage make it fairly complete.

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 88% schema coverage, the schema already describes parameters well. The description adds narrative context (e.g., how zoom, rotate, hue_shift, and decay interact in the feedback loop) and explains the audio-reactive exposure, which enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 ('Build') and resource ('parameterized infinite-zoom/rotate feedback tunnel'), and details the components and topology. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_feedback_network' and 'create_kaleidoscope' by its unique hypnotic spiral effect.

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 explains when to use it (for creating a feedback tunnel with audio-reactive controls) and mentions fallback when no source is given. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons with sibling tools, which prevents a score of 5.

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