Connect UWB anchor bus

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly mentions 'sanitized tag positions' and 'tag-privacy notes', indicating the tool applies privacy sanitization and generates privacy-related documentation. This is more specific than the readOnly/destructive hints and aligns with them. It does not contradict annotations, though it stops short of detailing network side effects or idempotency.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a UWB RTLS scaffold') and then lists the key components. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured, though the use of jargon like 'sanitized' and 'spatial policy' slightly reduces immediate clarity.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too high-level. It does not specify what the tool returns, how to configure the scaffold, or any prerequisites or side effects. The privacy-related context is useful but insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional guidance.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description needed to clarify parameter meanings but does not. It loosely references concepts like 'anchor maps' and 'spatial policy' that might map to anchor_count or space_label, but it never explicitly links them or explains how to choose values for fields like tag_count, zone_count, adapter_mode, or position_units. The 10 parameters are left mostly unexplained.

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 UWB RTLS scaffold and enumerates its contents (sanitized tag positions, anchor maps, spatial policy, adapter source, tag-privacy notes), which distinguishes it from other tracking/bus tools. However, the title says 'Connect' while the description focuses on 'Create a scaffold', introducing mild ambiguity about whether it directly connects to hardware or just sets up the system.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or contrast with sibling tools like create_optitrack_tracking_bus. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the scaffold elements listed.

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