cameras_by_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the 200-camera limit and points to an alternative for complete counts. However, it does not mention output shape, pagination behavior, error conditions, or any access requirements, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 sentences deliver the essential information with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, and the critical operational caveat (200-camera limit) plus the alternative tool are provided in the second sentence, which is ideal for an agent scanning descriptions.

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 moderately simple list tool, the description covers the main operational caveat (result cap) and directs the agent to the correct sibling for full counts. It lacks an output schema and has no annotations, but the core information needed to scope and call the tool correctly is present.

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 already explains state, route, and live_only. The description adds a route example and restates the two-letter state requirement, but it does not meaningfully expand on parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('traffic cameras'), and a precise scope ('for a US state (two-letter code)'), with an optional route filter. It also names state_uptime as a distinct tool for full fleet counts, helping separate it from a sibling at a glance.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to avoid this tool: if full fleet counts are needed, use state_uptime instead. It does not explicitly contrast with cameras_for_entity or camera_status, but the state-scoped purpose is clear enough to infer most usage boundaries.

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