Create Hokuyo LiDAR bus

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds some contextual traits like 'hardware-gated' and 'CHOP setup' without contradicting annotations. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., creating components, requiring network or serial connection) or prerequisites, so it only partially fulfills the transparency burden.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and names three key deliverables. It has no filler, but lacks structural breakdown and could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and sparse schema descriptions, the description is too brief to be complete. It fails to explain the significance of interface_mode, net_address, serial_port, start_step, end_step, active, or high_sensitivity, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool safely or correctly.

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 20%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the 10 parameters. It vaguely references 'scan-zone maps' which could relate to scan_zones, but offers no explicit mapping. With such low coverage, the description should clarify parameters but instead adds minimal value.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Hokuyo LiDAR scanner scaffold' with identifiable components (CHOP setup, scan-zone maps, calibration notes). It is distinguished from sibling tools like create_ouster_lidar_bus or create_livox_lidar_bus by explicitly naming Hokuyo.

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 this tool is for Hokuyo LiDAR scanners, but does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to use it compared to similar LiDAR bus creation tools. There are no mentions of alternatives or exclusions, but the name and title make the primary use case somewhat obvious.

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