pixera_get_projector_pose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read via 'Get' and notes values are 'live' (not cached) with units, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, or connection requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin behavioral disclosure.

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?

One tight sentence with the key information front-loaded and no wasted words. Well-sized for a simple read tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting needn't be explained, and the description does convey the returned quantities and their units. The only real gap is the undocumented 'name' parameter, which is minor for a single-argument read tool.

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 single required parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned anywhere in the description. The description does not clarify that 'name' identifies the target projector, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (projector's live position and rotation), plus units (m/deg) that clarify the return data. It is clear on its own but does not distinguish itself from siblings like pixera_list_projectors or pixera_set_screen_pose beyond the read vs. write implication.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pixera_list_projectors or pixera_get_param), and no preconditions or context are given. The description is purely a one-line statement of purpose with no usage framing.

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