camera

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals some parameter conventions (angle orientation, height scale, lens units) and implies the action of framing, but it does not state whether this overwrites the current camera, applies to a specific target, persists across renders, or has any side effects. For a mutating tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary verb and available composition types appear first, followed by terse parameter hints. The Korean fragment (카메라 구도) is somewhat redundant and the style is telegraphic, but overall there is minimal fluff and the key semantics are packed efficiently.

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?

With 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description needed to cover all parameter meanings and usage context. It covers several numeric conventions and preset names, but leaves target and distance_factor unexplained, provides no usage guidance, and does not clarify how parameters combine. This is incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real value by defining preset values, angle_deg (0=front, 90=right, -90=left), height (0=bottom, 1=top), and lens units (mm). However, target and distance_factor are not explained at all, and the interaction between preset, angle, height, and lens is left unclear.

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 clear action ('Frame the shot') and enumerates composition styles (wide, medium, closeup, low, high, top, front or side), with a Korean phrase confirming camera composition. It is not a tautology and it communicates the tool's role. However, it does not explicitly say it sets/updates camera parameters, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like set_look or camera_shake.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use camera versus alternatives such as set_look, camera_shake, or snapshot. The description implies it is for framing a shot, but it offers no conditions, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools. With many camera-related siblings, this lack of routing guidance is a notable gap.

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