Look at a camera

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

Annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile, and the description adds real behavioral detail: the still is scaled to 'width' pixels (default 1024), the snapshot-file semantics, and an auth prerequisite ('the API key needs Cameras ticked under Sensitive devices'). It does not cover latency or rate limits, but for a read tool this is solid added context.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns; the scale info and the VomeHome API-key prerequisite each earn their place. Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return is an image, plus scaling and auth prerequisites. Complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps around failure modes.

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 entity_id, width (with min/max/default), and instance_id are already fully documented. The description restates the width default and instance-scoping behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Return a camera's current still as an image you can see,' and clarifies the snapshot-file semantics. It does not name its nearest sibling (ha_camera_frame) to disambiguate, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear use context — 'to check framing, exposure, or what the camera shows' — which tells the agent when this is the right tool. It offers no explicit exclusions or alternative (e.g. why ha_camera_frame instead), so it is short of 5.

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