Create phone remote

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

The description discloses that the server listens on all interfaces and accepts unauthenticated writes, which adds security context beyond the annotations. It also describes the live touch-slider interaction, showing behavior not captured by readOnlyHint openWorldHint.

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 compact, starting with the main purpose, then behavior, security, and related tools. No redundant phrases or fluff; every sentence contributes.

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?

The description covers the tool's function, security, and workflow pairing. It does not explicitly mention the return value (e.g., a URL), but given the tool's simple nature and lack of output schema, the gap is minor; overall the context is sufficient.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (port and comp_path) at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 'Serve' and a resource 'Web Server DAT' plus the goal of controlling a COMP's numeric parameters from a phone. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'no app to install' and pairing with create_control_panel.

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 states when to use it ('control a COMP's numeric custom parameters from a phone') and includes a security constraint ('use it only on a trusted network'). It also suggests companion tools (create_control_panel, manage_cue), but does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, so not a 5.

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