camera_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds something annotations do not: that omitting the ref falls back to the active camera, which resolves the schema's bare 'default: null'. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g., no camera exists) but the output schema carries the return shape.

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?

A single sentence with the resource and default scope front-loaded, then a compact field list. The parenthetical enumerations are dense but every item earns its place by telling the agent what data it will receive.

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 read-only getter with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it says what comes back and what happens with no argument. The remaining gap is ref format semantics, which is exactly what an agent needs to call it with a non-default camera.

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% for the single 'ref' parameter, which accepts integer, string, or null with no documentation. The description explains only the null case ('active one by default') and leaves the agent guessing whether an integer is an index and a string is a name or UUID — the most consequential ambiguity in the whole definition.

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 resource and scope: a single camera retrieved 'in full', followed by an enumeration of exactly which property groups come back (transform, lens, postEffect, etc.). This implicitly separates it from the sibling camera_list (many cameras) and camera_set (mutation), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 parenthetical 'the active one by default' tells the agent how to call it with no argument, which is genuine usage guidance. But it never states when to prefer this over camera_list or camera_set, nor what happens if there is no active camera.

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