Create Window output matrix

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) already indicate a non-read-only, world-modifying operation. The description adds that the scaffold includes window maps, source maps, status, and setup notes, but it does not explain side effects like where it creates the scaffold or whether it modifies existing network parts. This is modest added context, not rich disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise and structured well, but the extreme brevity sacrifices detail that could make it more helpful, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of window maps/source maps, the meaning of setup notes, or how the parameters affect the resulting scaffold. Significant context is missing for an agent to reliably use the tool.

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 29%, leaving five parameters undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain parameters like window_count, resolution_width, resolution_height, active, or perform_mode, nor how they influence the scaffold. It lists output components but fails to close the schema gap.

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 action ('Create') and the specific resource ('Window COMP output matrix scaffold'), and it lists the key components of the scaffold ('window maps, source maps, status, setup notes'). This distinguishes it from other create_* tools like create_multi_output or create_ndi_router_matrix.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as setup_output or create_multi_output. No prerequisites, exclusions, or decision factors are provided, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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