Set up hand tracking

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false), but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it installs/loads an engine, starts the timeline, creates a Script CHOP, and specifies the output path. This matches the annotations and gives agents a clear model of side effects without contradiction.

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?

Four sentences cover the full pipeline, output format, usage recommendation, and sibling relationship without fluff. It is denser than a two-sentence ideal, but every sentence earns its place and the primary action is front-loaded.

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 setup tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what is built, where the output lives, what channels it provides, and how it can be consumed downstream. It also covers installation and shared-engine compatibility, making it self-sufficient for an agent.

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 describes all 5 parameters at 100% coverage, including defaults and coordinate_space guidance. The description reinforces key points like the output path and world-coordinate suitability but does not add significant new parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 pipeline: loads the MediaPipe engine, starts the timeline, locates the hand JSON DAT, and builds an adapter Script CHOP with a canonical channel layout. It also explicitly contrasts with setup_body_tracking by noting they share the same engine, distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

It gives clear usage context: one-shot webcam hand tracking setup, recommends coordinate_space='world' for gesture detection, and notes compatibility with setup_body_tracking. It does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives like create_hand_gesture_bus or Leap Motion bridges, but the guidance is strong enough.

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