Stage Pointer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses visibility (cameras only, headset never sees it), the two 'when' behaviors, that off=True hides it (reversibility), and specific error conditions (unknown style/hand, person not following or playing). It stops short of stating permissions or rate/performance implications, keeping it from a 5.

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 content is front-loaded with the core concept, but it is delivered as a dense, semicolon-chained run-on lacking structural breaks, mixing setup, geometry, error handling, and return shape. Every element is relevant for a 7-param tool, but the presentation could be far more scannable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and 7 parameters, the description covers behavior, defaults, errors, visibility, and even the return shape ({pointer, person, hand, when, size}), and an output schema exists. The one gap is the required 'scene' parameter, but overall it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines 'when' (point/always), 'hand' (auto/l/r), 'size' (1 ≈ 0.85 m), 'person' default, 'off' behavior, and 'style' implicitly via the foam_finger default and 'unknown style' error. Only the required 'scene' parameter is left unexplained, which is why this is a 4 rather than a 5.

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 states a concrete resource and effect: a hand-tracking foam-finger pointer that renders only to cameras, with the ray defined from shoulder through index fingertip. It distinguishes itself contextually from relatives like stage_actor_follow, stage_capture, and stage_surface. The only weakness is that the opening is phrased as a noun description rather than a verb, but the function is unambiguous.

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 operational context: the person defaults to 'the first one playing' and can be a live follow (stage_actor_follow) or a take, and it explains that the pointer lives on a layer the headset never shows, visible only to camera surfaces and stage_capture. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives like a laser or prop, but the surrounding conditions are well articulated.

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