Start Pure Data Demo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors such as headless launch, DSP start, and FUDI control preparation, but omits side effects like overwriting files or audio output behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 sentence that efficiently lists five actions without fluff. It could be structured more clearly by separating the launch and configuration aspects, but it remains appropriately sized and 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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter ranges, overwrite semantics, patch choices, or what the tool returns. It leaves significant gaps in context that an agent would need to operate correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only adds context for gui (explaining the headless default) and targetPath (mentioning it can be absolute). Parameters like amplitude, frequency, patch, overwrite, and audioOutDevice remain unexplained, so the description insufficiently compensates for the lack of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb sequence: generate a demo patch, launch Pd, start DSP, and prepare FUDI control. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on demo patch generation rather than live sessions or opening existing patches.

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 implies usage for creating and starting a demo patch, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like pd_start_live_session or pd_open_patch. No when-not-to-use guidance is given, so it earns a middle score.

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