Create Shared Memory bridge

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

The description discloses that creating an Out variant requires wiring with connect_nodes, warns about raw headerless buffers causing garbled frames, and notes that some combos may not be available (returns friendly fatal). Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with creation behavior. No contradictions.

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 concise, using about 5 sentences that front-load key information (direction, kind, shmName) and include important warnings without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested object) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers usage and cautions. It could mention the return value (operator path or name) but is otherwise complete enough for correct 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds overall context but does not provide substantial additional meaning beyond what the schema already gives for each parameter, meeting the baseline.

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 creates a Shared Memory bridge for zero-copy IPC, specifying direction, kind, and shmName. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on external app communication, unlike other create_* tools for internal TD nodes.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool: for zero-copy IPC with external apps on the same host. It mentions platform/build dependencies and warns about exact name matching, but does not explicitly state when not to use it, though the context implies it's for cross-app scenarios.

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