Create data source

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the output artifacts (Null CHOP, Null DAT), offline cooking behavior when no url is given, and that live OSC/serial values only appear when a sender/device is present. There is no contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true).

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 dense but well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then breaks down each mode and the resulting data structures. Every sentence adds distinct information, and there is no wasted verbiage.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 4 modes, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavioral outcomes: the creation of binding-ready channels and a raw text table, offline mode, and the condition that live values require a sender/device. Remaining parameters are self-explanatory via the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that numeric fields become channels on the output Null CHOP, how omitting `url` triggers static sample cooking, and how `kind` selects the data source mode. This extra context goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 function with a specific verb ('Ingest') and resource ('live external data onto a binding-ready channel/table'). It explicitly distinguishes itself as the 'input counterpart to create_data_visualization and bind_to_channel', which clarifies its role relative to sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool—when you need to bring external data in for binding—and explains mode-specific usage (json/csv polling, osc listening, serial reading). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative input tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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