camera_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it warns the pointing value is 'a hint, not proof', explains that a failed device returns a reason, and defines the crucial `simulated: true` semantics ('nothing physical moved and no picture was ever taken'). It does not explicitly state that the call is side-effect-free/idempotent, which is the one remaining gap for a zero-annotation 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 'Call this first' directive is front-loaded ahead of the longer enumeration of return contents, so the most decision-relevant information comes first. The second sentence is dense but each clause corresponds to a distinct output field, so little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must enumerate what comes back, and it does: camera identity, per-axis ranges, estimated pointing, calibration state, and failure reason. Combined with the simulated-flag caveat, an agent has everything needed to interpret and trust the result.

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 no parameters, so the schema has nothing to describe and there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Report the camera, its axes and ranges') plus the real-vs-simulated distinction, which no sibling (aim, go_to, run_shot, etc.) provides. An agent can tell this apart from the motion and vision siblings without opening any schema.

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?

'Call this first' is an explicit, actionable ordering directive that tells the agent when to reach for this tool relative to the other camera tools. It stops short of naming exclusions or explicitly contrasting with a specific sibling, so it lands just below the top band.

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