Connect TUIO touch surface

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'create' is consistent and adds that it produces a scaffold with specific components. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing nodes are overwritten) or setup prerequisites, leaving the description to carry minimal added behavioral context.

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?

This is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's essence without wasted words. It lists the key components and the optional raw OSC feature, making it both concise and informative.

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 description is minimally sufficient for a simple scaffold-creation tool. It identifies the components and parameters but does not explain the purpose of the TUIO DAT or maps in a broader TouchDesigner context, nor any post-creation steps. Given no output schema, this is adequate but could be richer.

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 only 29%, so the description needs to compensate. It does by mapping 'optional raw OSC' to include_raw_osc, 'cursor maps' to cursor_count, and 'surface maps' to surface_count. However, listen_port, active, and parent_path are not elaborated, though they are relatively self-explanatory. The description partially compensates for the low 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 TUIO touch-surface scaffold and lists the components included (TUIO DAT, optional raw OSC, cursor maps, surface maps). This distinguishes it from other connect/create tools for different protocols or touch surfaces.

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 implies usage for setting up a TUIO touch surface but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or any exclusions. Given the large number of sibling tools, this lack of explicit guidance is a notable gap.

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