Create video scopes monitor

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by revealing important behavioral traits: the histogram panel is currently unsupported and silently skipped, device source may hang TouchDesigner on macOS due to permission modals, and the tool creates a container at a specified parent path. It also explains the rendering pipeline (CHOP-to-SOP, orthographic camera, Render TOP, layoutTOP). No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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 three well-crafted sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. It is concise without omitting critical details, and no extraneous information is present.

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 14 parameters, no required params, no output schema, and no annotations beyond basic hints, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, panels, rendering method, companion tools, source options, a caveat about histogram, and the output container. The tool's complexity is well addressed.

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 100%, so the schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds some extra context (e.g., the rendering process and that histogram is unsupported), but it does not significantly increase understanding beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 builds a broadcast-style video engineering monitor with up to four specific scope panels, listing each panel's purpose (waveform, RGB parade, vectorscope, histogram). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning it is a companion to create_waveform (audio) and create_spectrum (audio frequency), making its video focus 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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (for video scopes) versus audio counterparts (create_waveform, create_spectrum). It also explains the default source (test pattern with no permission needed) and notes that 'device' is opt-in for live camera. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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