pan_tilt

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.