Create OpenXR controller bridge

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by noting the scaffold is for controller input streams supplied by an external adapter. However, it does not disclose the full behavioral implications of 'creating a scaffold' (e.g., what nodes are created, whether existing network elements are modified, or setup steps). Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description contributes moderate extra 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?

The description is a single sentence with zero filler, starting with the action verb 'Create' and listing specific stream types. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the scaffold's structure, configuration requirements, expected return, or how to use the result after creation. This leaves the agent without enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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 25% (name and parent_path have descriptions). The description does not compensate: it provides no explanation of parameters like source_mode, controller_count, coordinate_space, or receive_port, nor how they relate to the scaffold's function. Given the low coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('OpenXR/SteamVR controller input scaffold'), further detailing the stream types (pose, trigger, grip, thumbstick, button) and the external adapter source. This clearly distinguishes it from other bridge-creation tools in the sibling list, which focus on mocap, scene bridges, or other integrations.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated: the description indicates it is for OpenXR/SteamVR controller input from an external adapter, but does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusion criteria. Sibling tools like create_mocap_stream_bridge exist, but no comparative guidance is provided.

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