run_shot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses that the plan is validated against camera ranges before motion, that every axis in a step is written on each tick (avoiding staircase artifacts), that holds can be added, that a report shows picture difference at each waypoint, and that long shots need sufficient host timeout. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently covers step structure, sequencing, validation, return report, and timing caveat. Every sentence provides a distinct, useful detail for correct invocation without padding.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what the tool does, how steps are structured, how validation and reporting work, and a critical timing constraint. For a complex multi-step camera tool with an opaque nested schema, this is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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% and the single parameter is an untyped array of objects, so the description must compensate. It supplies the step object shape with example fields (axis, to, seconds, ease) and explains hold semantics, sequences, and multi-axis behavior. It does not enumerate all axis or ease values, but it adds substantial meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a multi-step camera move, verifying after every waypoint.' This clearly distinguishes it from single-move siblings such as go_to, aim, or nudge by emphasizing the multi-step, verified workflow.

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 when to use this tool (for multi-step camera moves) and includes a timing constraint ('do not set a host timeout shorter'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it versus siblings like go_to or sweep. Usage guidance is present but inferential.

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