Create Nuitrack body bus

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

Annotations already specify non-read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool produces a scaffold, a body_bus CHOP contract, and setup notes, and that live calibration is outside its scope. This transparency goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first states the action and available options, the second states the outputs and a key caveat. Every word contributes; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a scaffold tool with 9 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level view: what it produces (body_bus CHOP contract, setup notes) and a critical limitation (calibration validation). It could detail the CHOP contract format, but the schema already covers inputs, and the description is complete enough for selection.

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 schema coverage at 100%, each parameter is already described richly. The description mentions the transport modes (matching the 'source' enum) and the 'joint_set' implication via skeleton data, but adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't compensate for schema gaps because there are none.

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 it creates a TouchDesigner scaffold for Nuitrack skeleton data across multiple transports (OSC, WebSocket, TCP JSON, sample mode). It distinguishes from sibling body-bus tools (e.g., create_optitrack_tracking_bus) by naming Nuitrack specifically and mentioning the body_bus CHOP contract and setup notes.

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 for use: it is for scaffolding Nuitrack skeleton data into a body_bus CHOP with selectable transports. It also indicates a limitation (calibration must be validated separately), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, 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.