openbci_trigger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It lists operations but does not mention side effects (e.g., remove_rule is destructive), persistence of rules, authorization needs, error conditions, or rate limits. The default target hint is helpful but insufficient for a multi-operation tool.

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 well-structured with an introductory sentence, a bullet list of operations, and a concluding sentence on default target. It is front-loaded and concise, though the bullet list could be slightly more compact.

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 13 parameters, 7 operations, and no output schema, the description lacks detail on operation flows, relationship between operations (e.g., how rules are evaluated), expected outputs, and error handling. It is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual overview (e.g., default target) but does not clarify which parameters apply to each operation (e.g., add_rule requires band, channel, operator, threshold). Thus, it adds minimal value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'OSC triggers for BCI neurofeedback and osc-mcp downstream apps' and lists specific operations, effectively conveying the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like openbci_signal or openbci_stream, though context implies a focus on OSC triggering.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use scenarios. Siblings like openbci_board or openbci_signal exist but are not compared, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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