Connect Resolume Arena

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which align with the description's 'Create' action. The description adds some behavioral context by listing scaffold components (command maps, status DATs, preview handoff notes) and noting that runtime validation against Resolume is explicit. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, prerequisites, or failure behavior beyond that.

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 concise, with two sentences and front-loaded purpose. The phrase 'Runtime validation against Resolume remains explicit' is somewhat cryptic but doesn't bloat the text. It earns a solid score for efficiency, though it could be clearer.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and open-world semantics, the description is under-specified. It names three output types without relating them to parameters or explaining the scaffold's structure. Missing prerequisites like whether Resolume must be running, and no details on validation behavior, leave the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.

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 45%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters. It doesn't mention any of the 11 parameters (e.g., send_port, clip_count, preview_mode) or explain how they influence the scaffold. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the sparse schema.

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: 'Create a Resolume Arena/Avenue OSC control scaffold with command maps, status DATs, and preview handoff notes.' The verb 'Create' and specific resources distinguish it from siblings like connect_vdmx_workspace or scaffold_vj_deck.

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 on when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives. It doesn't mention cases like 'use this when connecting to Resolume' or exclude similar tools such as resolume_vdmx_output_chain. The description only defines the action, leaving usage context implicit.

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