camera

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Requires cheats enabled,' which is a critical behavioral trait, but fails to describe other important aspects like whether actions are reversible, if there are rate limits, what happens on errors, or the visual/auditory effects of actions. For a tool with 19 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 key actions and uses efficient bullet-like phrasing. However, the second sentence ('Perfect for filming...') is somewhat redundant with the first, and the structure could be tighter by integrating the cheats requirement earlier. Overall, it's concise but not perfectly structured.

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 complexity (19 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, prerequisites beyond cheats, and behavioral nuances. While it covers basic purpose and usage, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective tool invocation in a complex environment.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description lists action types (e.g., move_to, smooth_move) and mentions 'cinematic sequences,' adding some context beyond the schema, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as controlling the camera with specific actions (move_to, smooth_move, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like player or world. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sequence (which might handle sequences differently) or other build tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 usage for 'filming, showcasing builds, or creating camera movements' and states 'Requires cheats enabled,' providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sequence for sequences, player for player-related actions) or when not to use it, leaving room for ambiguity.

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