pan_tilt_nudge

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.