Create phone gesture

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

The description discloses that it listens on all interfaces without authentication, requires trusted networks, and that iOS Safari needs HTTPS for motion permission with fallback to touch-only on HTTP. This adds significant context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then composability, then security notes. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description describes the output channels (tilt, gyro, shake, touch, clients) and the operators created (Web Server DAT, Null CHOP). It covers all major aspects: functionality, composability, security, and platform-specific behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds context like port numbers distinct from 9980/9981, threshold units (m/s^2), and conditions for enableImu (iOS Safari HTTPS). This enriches meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 explicitly states it streams phone's IMU and multitouch into TouchDesigner as CHOP channels, and distinguishes from sibling create_phone_remote by noting different port and composability. The specific verb 'stream' and resource 'phone gesture' are clear.

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 mentions composability with create_phone_remote on the same COMP, and includes a security note about trusted networks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives beyond the sibling reference.

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