LiDAR floor tracker

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it builds a scaffold, creates specific CHOP/TOP outputs, and explicitly warns that hardware modes are neither active nor verified until a real sensor is connected. This sets accurate expectations without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: the first front-loads the core purpose and outputs, and the second adds a critical safety/verification note. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and constraints.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does well by naming output node types and clarifying hardware verification state. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or preconditions, but the schema covers individual parameters, and the core behavior is adequately described.

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 already provides 100% coverage with individual parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to add per-parameter explanations. It adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the schema carries the burden fully, supporting the baseline score.

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 tool builds a floor-occupancy tracker scaffold, specifies the exact input sources (synthetic, Ouster TOP, Leuze ROD4 CHOP, UDP point input), and names the outputs (tracked_points CHOP, floor preview TOP). This distinguishes it from sibling lidar bus creation tools and makes its purpose unmistakable.

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 usage context by naming the intended rehearsal and hardware input modes, and it includes a safety caveat about hardware modes being inactive and unverified. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient for selection among the broader sibling set.

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