Create ZED depth bus

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

The description adds the behavioral traits of 'runtime-gated warnings' and 'placeholders,' indicating the scaffold is not fully wired and may emit warnings under certain conditions. Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description adds moderate extra context but does not elaborate on the warnings' content or trigger conditions.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose (ZED camera scaffold) and key specifics (TOP/CHOP/SOP placeholders, runtime-gated warnings). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a creation tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and only a brief description, the information is thin. The description omits return values, parameter effects, and the nature of 'runtime-gated warnings.' Annotations provide some safety context, but the tool's complexity warrants much more detail.

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% (name and parent_path). The description does not explain any of the seven parameters—active, body_count, camera_index, stream_count, include_pointcloud—or how they affect the scaffold. It only indirectly references point-cloud via the word 'point-cloud' in the description, which is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the action (Create), the specific resource (ZED camera depth/body/point-cloud scaffold), and key details (ZED TOP/CHOP/SOP placeholders, runtime-gated warnings). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_realsense_depth_bus by explicitly focusing on ZED cameras.

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: it is for creating a ZED depth scaffold, implying it should be used when you need a ZED camera pipeline. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other depth cameras, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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