Nudge Eos Encoder Wheel

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: relative ticks, fine/coarse mode, prerequisite channel selection, and magnitude guidance. It doesn't cover return values or edge cases but sufficiently enriches the annotation-provided profile.

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?

Well-structured with a concise opening sentence and a labeled Args list. It front-loads the core purpose and then neatly explains parameters. It repeats some schema descriptions, but this is not detrimental. Size is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 3-parameter command with no output schema, the description covers functionality, prerequisites, parameter semantics, and usage context. Missing return value and edge-case behavior (e.g., 'no channel selected'), but the core information is complete enough for an OSC simulation 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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by giving examples ('pan'), magnitude guidance ('~1 for fine nudges, ~5-10 for bigger moves'), and clarifying the omission behavior for intensity/level. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 it simulates turning an encoder wheel by a relative number of ticks for the currently selected channel/parameter. It distinguishes itself from absolute-value tools by explicitly noting 'rather than jumping to an absolute value' and referencing the prerequisite eos_select_channel tool, separating it from siblings like eos_set_parameter.

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: 'useful for live "nudge it a bit" adjustments' and the prerequisite 'use eos_select_channel first.' It implies when to use relative nudging over absolute setting but does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of a full when/when-not list.

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