camera-report

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 only says 'report' without disclosing whether this is read-only, what data is returned, or any side effects. It does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or provide details about the report format, leaving significant ambiguity for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and default behavior. There is no wasted wording; every part adds meaning.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter), but without an output schema or annotations, the description fails to explain what 'report' actually entails—what camera properties are returned, whether it lists the active camera or a named one, and any error cases. It is minimally complete but leaves critical details unexplored.

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 description indirectly explains the 'camera' parameter by stating it defaults to the active scene camera, which clarifies the optional default behavior. However, it does not explain what values are acceptable (e.g., object names) or how they are referenced, so the schema coverage is 0% and the description only partially compensates.

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: 'Report one camera' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like camera-list by indicating it reports a single camera rather than listing all. The phrase 'defaulting to the active scene camera' further clarifies scope and differentiates it from camera-set_active.

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 provides context by stating it defaults to the active scene camera, implying when to use it (when you need info about a single camera, often the active one). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like camera-list or when not to use it (e.g., when you need all cameras), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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