Create hand hologram

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

With annotations declaring non-readOnly and openWorldHint, the description adds significant behavioral detail: the default synthetic cube, open-palm visibility, float anchor positioning, opposite-hand pinch controlling scale/glow, and optional audio. It does not contradict annotations and enhances understanding of how the tool behaves in real use, though it doesn't cover every side effect (e.g., component creation path).

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 two sentences totaling 59 words, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every sentence contributes meaningful behavior, defaults, or dependencies, with no fluff or repetition of schema information. It is an exemplar of concise, information-dense description.

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 high complexity (21 parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is notably incomplete. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., does create_hand_gesture_bus need to already exist?), return values, or effects on existing components. The interactive behavior is well-covered, but an agent would still be unaware of many configuration options and potential side effects, making it insufficient 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?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides meaning for key parameters: 'synthetic' (source), 'holographic cube' (preset), pinch controlling scale/glow (size, glow, pinch_scale_amount), 'float anchor' (float_height), and audio modes (audio_mode). However, with 21 parameters, many remain unexplained (e.g., color, accent_color, resolution, comp_name), so the compensation is partial.

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 states a specific action: 'Build a palm-anchored hologram visual' with the resource being a hologram visual. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by highlighting the driving dependency ('create_hand_gesture_bus') and describing concrete interactive behaviors, making it clear this is not a generic creation tool or a bus builder.

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 on when to use the tool: when you need a palm-anchored hologram driven by hand gestures. It implies prerequisite usage by mentioning 'driven by create_hand_gesture_bus' and outlines default and interactive behaviors. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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