Connect NFC tap bus

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Create' action aligns with these. The description adds context by listing the scaffold components, but it does not disclose potential side effects like network connections, modifications to existing components, or what the scaffold will be used for. It is consistent with annotations but adds only moderate behavioral context beyond them.

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 of 16 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact list of components. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations, this one-sentence description is insufficient to fully inform an agent about the scaffold's structure, return value, or post-conditions. It doesn't explain what 'scaffold' entails, how the resulting component is organized, or what the agent can do with the result. The description is too minimal for a tool of this complexity.

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 22% (only name and parent_path have descriptions), so the description should compensate for the remaining 7 parameters. It mentions high-level concepts like consent policy and adapter source, which loosely map to consent_mode and adapter_url, but it does not explain individual parameters such as active, installation_label, or tap_event_count. The description offers only vague semantic clues and does not adequately 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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as an 'NFC tap scaffold' with a clear list of included components (sanitized tap events, station maps, consent policy, adapter source, tag-privacy notes). It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling bus-creating tools like connect_rfid_badge_bus or connect_ble_beacon_bus, so it doesn't fully achieve sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it creates, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or references to alternative tools, which is a significant gap given the large number of sibling bus/scaffold tools.

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