LiDAR floor tracker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: hardware modes default inactive and remain explicitly 'unverified until a real sensor is connected', which is a safety detail not present in the annotations. It also states the produced outputs, surpassing annotation coverage without contradicting it.

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?

Two sentences, tightly packed: first states purpose and inputs, second states outputs and a critical safety behavior. No filler, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word contributes. It is concise without losing essential information.

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 scaffold-building tool with 10 parameters, the description covers key context: what it builds, for which sensors, what outputs are produced, and the rehearse-safe default. It omits post-creation steps like verification or how to enable hardware later, but the openWorldHint and rich schema largely compensate, making it adequately complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for its 10 parameters, each with meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not reiterate parameter details but contextually implies the 'active' and 'sensor' parameters through the hardware default note. Since the schema carries the heavy lifting, the description adds no significant parameter semantics beyond that.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('floor-occupancy tracker scaffold'). It names supported input modes (synthetic rehearsal, Ouster TOP, Leuze ROD4 CHOP, UDP point input) and outputs (tracked_points CHOP, floor preview TOP), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_ouster_lidar_bus or generic node-creation tools.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: building a floor tracker for synthetic rehearsal or specific hardware inputs. It also mentions the safety default of inactive hardware modes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some room for inference.

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