Create OpenXR controller bridge

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

Descriptions adds little beyond the annotations. While readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true indicate a mutating, externally-interacting tool, the description does not disclose what the scaffold creates, whether it attempts connections, or any side effects on the existing scene. No extra behavioral context is provided.

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 core purpose. Every word is informative, with no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the scaffold's structure, the role of parameters, or any setup/connection behavior expected from an external adapter. The sparse description is not enough to guide use in a complex open-world context.

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 low (25%), with only name and parent_path having descriptions. The tool description mentions streams like pose and trigger but does not explain parameters such as source_mode, receive_port, controller_count, or coordinate_space. The description fails to compensate for the schema's weak documentation.

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's function: creating an OpenXR/SteamVR controller input scaffold. It names the specific input streams (pose, trigger, grip, thumbstick, button) and the external adapter source, distinguishing it from sibling bridge and setup tools.

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 phrase 'supplied by an external adapter' implies the tool is for integrating external controller data, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like other bridge tools or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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