capture_turntable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important side effect: the camera is orbited and then the view is restored, so the agent knows the viewport state is not left altered. It says nothing about what the call returns (image files? paths? a list?), where captures land, how many images the angles list produces, or whether it is slow/expensive.

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?

Front-loaded with the action summary followed by parameter hints; every sentence carries information and there is no filler. Slightly hurt by the abrupt line-wrapped fragments ('zoom above 1 moves closer.') that read as notes rather than a structured description.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never states the return payload or output location, doesn't explain 'angles' or 'max_size', and gives no cost/pagination expectations for a multi-capture operation. An agent could call it but could not predict what it gets back.

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%, so the description must compensate; it does explain zoom ('above 1 moves closer'), elevation (negative looks up from below) and focus ([x, y, z] orbit point, default model center). It leaves the 'angles' parameter list and 'max_size' entirely undocumented, so roughly two of five parameters remain guesswork.

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 concrete verb chain (orbit, capture each yaw angle, restore view) and a resource (the turntable/camera), so an agent knows this produces multi-angle captures rather than a single frame. It never names how it differs from capture_viewport or capture_channel, which are the obvious siblings an agent would confuse it with.

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?

'for close-ups of one part; it defaults to the model's center' implies a use case for the focus parameter, and 'see every side' implies the multi-angle use case. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-capture_viewport guidance and no statement of prerequisites or when to avoid the tool.

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