Create OptiTrack tracking bus

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

Annotations already indicate mutation and non-destructive intent. The description adds that it builds a scaffold with specific parts, but does not disclose side effects like number of nodes created, collision behavior, or external system dependencies.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's scope while listing the critical scaffold components.

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?

With no output schema, the return behavior is unexplained. The description gives a high-level overview but lacks details on the scaffold's structure, node hierarchy, or post-creation configuration. Adequate for initial selection but not for full operational understanding.

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?

Only 2 of 8 parameters are described in the schema (25% coverage). The description vaguely references concepts like rigid-body maps and marker maps but does not explain parameters such as data_port, server_address, or marker_count, leaving most settings underspecified.

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 specifies a concrete resource (OptiTrack/NatNet tracking scaffold) and enumerates its key components (receiver, rigid-body maps, marker maps, calibration notes). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_blacktrax_tracking_bus.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_blacktrax_tracking_bus or create_ncam_camera_tracking_bus. There is no mention of prerequisites, integration scenarios, or exclusions.

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