sensor_visual

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'Visual Encoding', which does not disclose side effects, memory usage, rate limits, or what happens to input data (e.g., read vs. destructive). The schema hints at simulation via the 'simulate' parameter, but the description does not clarify behavior during real capture or encoding.

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 very short (two phrases), which is concise but risks being too terse. It front- loads the technology name ('V-JEPA 2') but lacks any structure or elaboration. While not wasteful, it does not earn its place by providing value beyond a title.

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?

Given the complexity of a nested input object with multiple parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how video frames are handled, or the role of 'simulate'. The agent would have to infer behavior from the schema, which is risky.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema provides descriptions for the 'input' object (as a whole) and the 'simulate' parameter, and 'videoFrames' is described. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 'V-JEPA 2 Visual Encoding (Image/Video)' indicates the tool deals with visual encoding for images and videos, distinguishing it from sibling sensors like sensor_audio or sensor_olfactory. However, it lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'encode', 'process') and uses jargon ('V-JEPA 2') that may not be universally understood, leaving the exact action ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The name 'sensor_visual' implies it is for visual data, but the description does not explicitly state use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not mention that this tool should be used for encoding visual inputs while sensor_audio handles audio.

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