Create Ouster LiDAR bus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description's 'Create' aligns with. The description adds that the scaffold includes Ouster TOP, range selection, zone maps, and calibration notes, providing some detail about the created content. However, it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or how these components behave, leaving the agent with moderate understanding.

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 of 13 words that directly conveys the tool's core action and output components. It avoids unnecessary filler and front-loads the primary purpose.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description only provides a high-level overview of the scaffold without explaining parameter meanings (e.g., imu_port, lidar_port, ring_count, zone_count, device_address) or the integration context of parent_path. This leaves the agent dependent on naming conventions and defaults, which is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 25% (name and parent_path have descriptions; active, imu_port, lidar_port, ring_count, zone_count, device_address do not). The description text does not explain any parameters, and mentions of 'range selection' and 'zone maps' only loosely relate to ring_count and zone_count without explicit mapping. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Ouster LiDAR scaffold'), and enumerates key included components (Ouster TOP, range selection, zone maps, calibration notes). This distinguishes it from sibling lidar bus tools like create_hokuyo_lidar_bus and create_livox_lidar_bus by explicitly naming Ouster.

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 usage context by specifying 'Ouster LiDAR', making it evident that this tool is for Ouster devices rather than alternatives such as Hokuyo or Livox. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the vendor-specific phrasing provides clear context.

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