aim_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that this is a read-only list operation and describes the returned content (recorded directions plus the calibrated default pose), but it omits any detail about permissions, side effects, or output format. For a simple no-parameter query tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 entire definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes specific information about what is listed and what the camera context is. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no annotations) and the absence of an output schema, the description does the essential work of naming what is returned: recorded directions and the calibrated default pose. It does not describe the output format or list ordering, but for a simple enumeration tool it is nearly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter syntax to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly adds no misleading parameter claims.

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 ('List') and a clearly bounded resource ('the directions recorded for this camera, and its calibrated default pose'). It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like aim or aim_learn, which likely set or learn directions rather than enumerate them. It stops short of naming an explicit sibling alternative, which keeps it from a full 5.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no guidance about when to use it versus siblings such as camera_status, check_view, or aim_learn. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative-routing instructions. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and purpose alone.

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