enable_hand_tracking

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation (false): it explains what happens when enabled (tracks hand poses, joint positions, recognizes gestures). It does not mention destructive actions, authorization needs, or rate limits, but the mutation nature is clear. The description adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and quickly adding context. Every word is informative, and no extraneous details are present. Excellent conciseness.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, all well-documented in the schema, and no output schema. The description provides a general overview but does not explain key parameters like 'trackedHands', 'trackingMode', or visualization options. For a complex tool, additional context about parameter defaults or use cases would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The tool description does not add new meaning to parameters; it only summarizes the overall behavior. Since the schema is thorough, the description adds minimal additional semantic value, matching the baseline of 3.

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 purpose: enabling or disabling hand tracking on XREAL glasses. It specifies the resource ('hand tracking') and the action ('enables or disables'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'configure_hand_gestures' and 'get_hand_state' by focusing on the master toggle.

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 mentions it is 'Required for hand-based interactions,' implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'configure_hand_gestures' for gesture-specific settings). Usage guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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