OSC router matrix

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral details: 'offline-safe,' deterministic left-to-right layout, per-target CHOP creation, and a structured report of emitted addresses. This meaningfully supplements the structured annotation data.

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 tightly written sentences: the first packs the essential purpose and mechanics, the second gives real-world use cases. No filler, every clause earns its place, and the most critical information (create + structure) is front-loaded.

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 tool with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the created nodes, layout, address prefixes, and return value (structured report). The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the mention of the report. It could be slightly more explicit about the container name/parent path behaviors, but the schema covers those.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level semantics—'one Constant CHOP plus OSC Out CHOP per target'—but does not provide parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already documents, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 opens with 'Create an offline-safe OSC control matrix'—a specific verb and resource—then details the exact construction (Constant CHOP + OSC Out CHOP per target, deterministic layout, prefixes, structured report). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_ndi_router_matrix or connect_resolume_arena, which target different protocols or integrations.

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 says 'Use it as the primitive for QLab, atemOSC/Companion, Resolume, VDMX, or any OSC-speaking show-control endpoint,' giving explicit, useful context. It does not name direct alternatives to exclude, but the OSC-specific scope and reference to 'OSC-speaking' provide clear situational guidance.

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