send_osc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the broadcast default ("to all targets") and frames itself as an escape hatch, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, ordering, or whether omitted targets is safe. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the escape-hatch framing and the routing behavior, then the use case. No filler; every clause carries 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 3-parameter raw-message tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and target defaulting, but leaves most parameter semantics and side-effect behavior undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps given zero schema description coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly conveys address and args via the example ("/visuals/layer/2/opacity" 0.5) and clarifies the targets parameter's default behavior ("all targets or the named ones"), but leaves arg typing and the full meaning of targets unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("send a raw OSC message") and scopes it ("to all targets or the named ones"), which an agent can distinguish from scene-model siblings like set_scene. It is clear but does not explicitly name which sibling it replaces.

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?

"Use for program-specific messages the scene model doesn't cover" gives a clear when-to-use condition with a concrete example address. It implies the alternative (the scene model / set_scene) without naming it explicitly, so no exclusion list is provided.

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