Create RealSense depth bus

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Create' action is consistent. The description adds minor context by mentioning the modes and routing notes, but does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., camera connection), or the structure of the created scaffold beyond what is implied.

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, dense sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key modes without excessive verbosity. It is reasonably front-loaded with the main action, though the long list of modes makes it slightly less scannable than ideal.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the scaffold produces or how the routing notes are delivered. For a creation tool with 10 parameters and multiple modes, the description is adequate but leaves gaps about the resulting component structure and configuration specifics.

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 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (active, resolution, source_mode, include_color, include_pointcloud). It hints at modes and color/point-cloud, which vaguely aligns with source_mode and include_color/include_pointcloud, but lacks explicit explanations of parameter meaning, especially resolution options and 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 verb 'Create' and the specific resource 'Intel RealSense depth-camera scaffold'. It further distinguishes the tool by enumerating modes (RealSense TOP, NDI, WebSocket, sample-source) and the included depth/color/point-cloud routing, setting it apart from sibling depth buses like create_zed_depth_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?

The description gives clear context that this tool is for creating a RealSense depth-camera scaffold, which implies usage for Intel RealSense hardware. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool over other depth buses, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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