Create Livox LiDAR bus

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with a 'create' operation. The description adds value by listing what the scaffold includes, but does not disclose side effects such as whether files are written, whether a new COMP is instantiated at parent_path, or whether existing components are modified.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs core features without waste. Every phrase adds meaningful information about what the scaffold contains.

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 moderately complex tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description captures the high-level purpose but omits details about return values, preconditions, project placement, or how the scaffold is structured internally. The parameter defaults and ranges in the schema help, but the description alone would be insufficient for advanced use.

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 33%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps to parameters via 'UDP/WebSocket/file-replay ingest' (adapter_mode) and 'zone maps' (zone_count), but leaves many parameters (active, server_url, receive_port, device_address, point_rate_hint) unexplained beyond schema defaults.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('Livox LiDAR adapter scaffold'), and enumerates specific components (ingest modes, point-stream schema, zone maps, calibration notes). It distinguishes itself from sibling lidar bus tools by specifying Livox as the target hardware.

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 when creating a Livox LiDAR adapter within TouchDesigner, but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It does not mention similar tools for other lidar types (e.g., Ouster, Hokuyo) or when file_replay vs UDP would be preferred.

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