camera_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a read-style status lookup and enumerates what the result contains. It does not discuss rate limits, auth, or side effects, but 'Live status of one camera' strongly implies a non-mutating query.

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?

Two compact sentences. The first establishes the tool's output, and the second explains how to address a specific camera. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 describing the return contents in prose is important and is done well. The main gap is not explicitly stating whether exactly one of name, slug, or camera_id is required, but the overall description is sufficient for a straightforward status lookup.

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 coverage is 100%, giving the baseline 3. The description adds real value by explaining that the camera can be identified by id, slug, OR name fragment, and that these are scoped within a state. This clarifies the relationship between state and the optional identifier parameters beyond the schema alone.

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 names a specific verb ('Live status'), a clear resource ('one camera'), and the key output fields (verified-live state, last live time, source URL, attribution). This distinguishes it from siblings like cameras_by_state (listing) and state_uptime (state-level status).

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?

It clearly implies this is for fetching status of a single camera using id, slug, or name fragment within a state. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over cameras_by_state or state_uptime, nor does it state that one of the identifiers should be supplied.

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