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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key runtime behaviors: `position` is null without a live session, `startup_error` explains startup failures, and `stream_url` exposes the live video feed. It does not discuss side effects, but 'Report' implies a read-only operation and the disclosed field states are the most decision-relevant behaviors.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the tool's purpose, the second gives critical ordering guidance, and the third explains the stream URL. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it reports, when to call it, why it matters, and how to interpret key fields. Nothing critical is missing 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema provides no parameter semantics to clarify. The description instead adds meaning to the output fields, which is the relevant semantic content for a status tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report the camera's orientation, travel limits and session state.' This clearly distinguishes it from the pan/tilt and snapshot siblings as a status/read tool, not a control or capture tool.

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 explicitly tells the agent to call this first and explains why: `position` is null until a live session exists, which indicates other tools will fail. This is direct when-to-use guidance with a concrete alternative-aware rationale.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool waits for hardware confirmation, fails if not confirmed, reports moved:false for no-op and treats it as success, and explains the force flag. This adds significant behavioral context beyond what the schema provides.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses bullet-like details for behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but referenced) and the description's mention of returned position and moved flag, the tool's behavior is adequately explained. The only gap is explicit usage routing to siblings, but that belongs to usage guidelines. The description covers the core semantics and edge cases well.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains pan/tilt as signed whole degrees with a rough range (-128..127) and clarifies the force default and purpose. This is more than the bare schema provides, though it could add more detail on units or edge cases.

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 a specific action (aim the camera at an absolute angle and wait), identifies the resource (pan/tilt), and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing absolute positioning and the wait-for-arrival behavior. It differentiates from nudge (relative) without ambiguity.

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 implies this is for absolute positioning and explains the force behavior, but it never explicitly names alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use pan_tilt_nudge for relative adjustments'). The when-to-use guidance is only implicit through the emphasis on absolute angle and success conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately states the primary action and mentions reporting the ending position, but does not disclose behavior when no home position is saved, movement duration, blocking semantics, or failure modes. It is minimal but not misleading.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys action, target state, and result with no filler. It does not repeat the tool name or schema information.

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?

The tool is simple (zero parameters) and an output schema is available, so the description's core action and result statement are largely sufficient. A small gap is the lack of a note about unset home positions, but this does not prevent 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?

The schema has zero properties and therefore 100% vacuous coverage. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies; the description adds no parameter detail because none is needed.

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 specific action ('Send the camera to its saved home position') with a clear resource and verb, and adds the outcome ('report where it ends up'). This distinguishes it from siblings like pan_tilt, pan_tilt_set_home, and pan_tilt_stop.

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 intended use is implied by 'saved home position' – an agent can infer this is for returning to a preset location – but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like pan_tilt_set_home or pan_tilt.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two non-obvious behaviors: it internally reads the current angle before moving, and it clamps deltas to the mount's range. This is valuable transparency. However, it does not mention error conditions or whether the operation is safe/blocking, but given the simple nature of the tool, this is acceptable.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence delivers the core action, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and well-structured, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema (so return format is externally defined), the description covers the essential behavior and usage context. It mentions units, clamping, and when to prefer this tool. It could mention edge cases like both deltas being zero or behavior when the mount is not homed, but these are minor for the tool's simplicity.

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% (no parameter descriptions in the schema), so the description must compensate. It adds that deltas are in degrees and are clamped, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly explain the meaning of pan_delta vs tilt_delta beyond their names, nor the effect of positive/negative values. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description leaves some semantic details to inference.

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 specific verb ('Turn'), resource ('camera'), and the relative nature of movement ('relative to where it points now'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pan_tilt, which likely sets absolute angles. It also hints at a behavior different from absolute positioning, making 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 explicitly says 'Prefer this when you have not read the current angle', providing a clear condition for use. It also explains why (it reads the mount's own report first) and adds a safety hint ('keeps the move small'), giving the agent enough context to choose it over alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the crucial async behavior ('Returns immediately; the sweep takes a while'), which is a genuinely helpful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if called during an existing movement, whether it can be interrupted by pan_tilt_stop, or any completion indication (e.g., via camera_status).

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?

Extremely compact: two short sentences. The first sentence states the action, the second clarifies the async return. No filler. This is an example of appropriately sized, front-loaded description.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, so description needn't explain return values. The only notable gap is lack of guidance on interaction with siblings (e.g., can pan_tilt_stop cancel this sweep?). Without annotations, some operational context is missing, but for a zero-param async command, this is otherwise 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?

There are zero parameters, so no param semantics are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description's mention of a 360-degree sweep serves as the only required semantic context. No parameter documentation issues exist.

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 uses a specific imperative verb ('Start'), names the exact resource ('full 360 degree pan overview'), and clearly contrasts with the 'returns immediately' behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like pan_tilt, pan_tilt_nudge, and pan_tilt_stop.

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?

Implies when to use it (when a full sweep is desired), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., camera on/off, calibration), or whether it conflicts with other movements like pan_tilt or pan_tilt_nudge. With no annotations, more explicit usage guidance would be expected.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Save', which implies a state change, but it does not disclose whether the previous home position is overwritten, whether the change persists, requires any setup, or has other side effects.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and result. No filler or redundant information.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It defines the action and its outcome clearly; the only missing context is how this interacts with siblings like 'pan_tilt_home', but that falls under usage guidance, not core completeness.

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 has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool implicitly uses the camera's current angle rather than accepting an argument, which is a meaningful semantic clarification.

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 uses a specific verb ('Save') and clear resource ('camera's current angle as its home position'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'pan_tilt_home' by phrasing the action as setting a home position rather than moving to it.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pan_tilt_home' or 'pan_tilt'. There are no stated prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes that stopping is harmless when idle, but does not mention whether the call is asynchronous, what it returns, error conditions, or any side effects beyond halting motors. This is insufficient for a safety-relevant control action.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the safety note is brief and useful. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential action and a relevant safety edge case. It lacks detail on return behavior or potential errors, but given the minimal complexity, the description is adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no param details because none exist.

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 verb 'Stop' and the resource 'mount's motors', making the primary action unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like pan_tilt_nudge or pan_tilt_home, but the purpose is self-evident and distinct from movement commands.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it should be chosen, leaving the agent to infer.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: the frame comes from the existing stream and does not start a second session. It also flags the privacy-relevant fact that the tool captures what is in the room. It does not mention return format or failure modes, but for a simple zero-parameter tool this is strong context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by usage guidance and a behavioral clarification. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to invoke it, and a key behavioral trait (reuses existing stream). An agent can select and call it correctly without additional information.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is reported as 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Capture one still frame of whatever the camera is pointed at.' This clearly differentiates snapshot from camera_status (status reporting) and pan_tilt controls (movement).

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 an explicit usage condition: 'call it only when the user asks to see the camera.' It also provides an implicit exclusion by warning that this 'looks into the room,' signaling it is not a background or metadata operation.

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