Connect disguise stage

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which is consistent with the description's 'Create' action. The description adds scaffold components (timeline, layer, approval maps) and protocols (HTTP, OSC), but does not disclose side effects like network listeners or project modifications. With annotations covering the safety profile, the added context is moderate but not rich.

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 front-loads the primary action 'Create a disguise/d3 HTTP and OSC show-control scaffold'. It contains no filler or redundancy, and the length is appropriate for a high-level purpose. However, its brevity comes at the cost of detail, which is captured in other dimensions.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and an open-world annotation, the description is too minimal to fully orient an agent. It doesn't explain the scaffold's structure, what the returned result is, or how parameters like active, api_host, and osc_port are used. The description leaves significant gaps for a tool this complex.

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 only 25% (just name and parent_path have descriptions), and the description does not explain any parameters. It mentions 'timeline, layer, and approval maps' but does not map them to parameters like timeline_count or layer_count, and there is no approval_map parameter. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 creates a disguise/d3 HTTP and OSC show-control scaffold with timeline, layer, and approval maps, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It differentiates from sibling connect_* tools by naming the target system (disguise/d3) and the scaffold's components. The title is ambiguous but the description resolves it.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. There is no mention of conditions for use, exclusion criteria, or references to sibling tools. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and the generic 'Create' action.

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