Create test pattern

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that it builds a baseCOMP with a GLSL TOP and Null TOP, and that the shader is baked per pattern with no live bindings or custom uniforms required. This goes beyond simple create/build phrasing, though it doesn't discuss overwrite or side-effect behavior in detail.

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 front-loaded with purpose and uses four sentences to cover behavior, patterns, use cases, and configurability. Some filler such as 'every media server ships and tdmcp was missing' is not strictly necessary but does not undermine clarity.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the built network's structure, the configurable pattern types, and the intended application contexts. It does not explain every parameter, but those are fully documented in the schema, and the high-level behavior is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the schema carries full parameter details. The description adds only a general statement that pattern, resolution, divisions, overlay number/label, and colours are configurable, which restates what the schema already provides without deeper semantic value.

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?

Description names a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('standalone test-pattern network') for projector calibration/alignment, and enumerates pattern types and output structure. It distinguishes itself from generic shader creation by emphasizing baked-in static patterns and a Null TOP output handle, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like projector_calibration_wizard.

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?

Clear usage context is provided: 'Use the output as a routing source during projector alignment, LED mapping calibration, or camera registration.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, but it stops short of explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it misses the top score.

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