control_gimbal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool controls a gimbal with pan/tilt directions, implying a mutation action, but doesn't mention behavioral traits like whether changes are immediate, reversible, require specific permissions, have rate limits, or affect other operations. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and parameter meanings. Every word earns its place—there's no fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with essential clarifications.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and directional semantics but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output expectations. For a mutation tool controlling hardware, more completeness would be beneficial to ensure safe and correct use.

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 fully documents parameters (pan, tilt, zoom) with ranges and descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying the semantics of pan and tilt directions (e.g., NEGATIVE=RIGHT for pan), which isn't in the schema. However, it doesn't explain the zoom parameter or how parameters interact, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Control camera gimbal', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'center_camera', 'get_gimbal_position', or 'look_and_analyze', which all seem related to camera/gimbal operations. The description is vague about what specific control action it performs beyond the directional hints.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'center_camera' (which might reset position) or 'get_gimbal_position' (which might read current state), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for use. The directional hints imply usage for positioning, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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