camera_shake_play

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 discloses the PIE prerequisite, but gives no information on side effects, error behavior (e.g., what happens if PIE is not running), whether it affects camera state, or any return values. Major behavioral aspects are undisclosed.

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 states the core action and requirement without waste. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is quite terse, which is slightly offset by its simplicity.

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 moderate complexity (three parameters, one required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not clarify how camera_shake_play differs from sibling tools like camera_shake_trigger or camera_shake_spawn, what happens in error conditions, or how parameters affect behavior. The PIE requirement is helpful but not enough for correct invocation.

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 does not reference any parameters. Schema coverage is 67% (scale and shake_class have descriptions, play_space does not), but the description adds no value beyond the schema. The missing explanation for play_space is not compensated by the description.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Play a camera shake') and the context ('during PIE'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like camera_shake_blueprint and camera_shake_spawn. The phrase 'Requires PIE to be running' further scopes the purpose. Specific verb + resource + context.

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 gives a clear usage context ('during PIE') and a prerequisite ('Requires PIE to be running'), which tells the agent when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., when PIE is not running), so it lacks exclusions.

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