Create hand gesture bus

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

Annotations provide basic safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive). The description adds context about the output (Null CHOP with specific channels) and mentions the synthetic default. But it does not fully explain the creation process (e.g., whether it creates a component or modifies the network), leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently lists output channels and includes a useful usage note. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (20 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the tool returns beyond the output channels, nor does it document most parameters. The agent would need additional information to use it effectively.

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 20 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters. It only mentions 'source' and its effect, ignoring the other 19 parameters. This is insufficient for an agent to set parameters correctly.

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 builds a 'stable MediaPipe-hands gesture bus' and lists specific output channels (e.g., palm_open, pinch_active). The verb 'build' is specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'create_hand_hologram' or 'create_hand_ableton_mapper', leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides usage guidance by mentioning the default synthetic source for preview without a camera and the 'source=mediapipe' option using 'setup_hand_tracking'. This gives context for when to use different sources. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives, which is adequate but not thorough.

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