Duck camera

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the no-side-effect profile is covered. The description adds useful context about views and distance but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as output format or whether the frame is static or animated. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 two sentences long and every clause adds distinct, actionable information: what the tool does, valid view values, distance semantics, and a usage hint. There is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 two-parameter, zero-required tool with a readOnly annotation and no output schema, the description covers the key invocation details: valid views, distance range, and a state-pairing tip. The return format is not explicitly described, but 'render a camera frame' makes the output type inferable.

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 schema provides only parameter names and defaults, with 0% description coverage and no enums. The description fully compensates by defining each view ('follow' behind the duck, 'front' facing it, 'side', 'top') and giving distance units and a usable range of 0.4 to ~1.5 meters.

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 opens with a specific action and object: 'Render a camera frame of the sim.' The view list and distance range further clarify exactly what kind of camera output is produced. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like duck_drive, duck_push, and duck_state, which are action/state tools rather than rendering tools.

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 an explicit pairing recommendation: 'Pair with duck_state for pose numbers.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a simple visualization tool the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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