client_look

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the behavioral disclosure burden and does a good job: it defines coordinate orientation, clamps inputs to [-1, 1], and promises that inputs are released on every exit path. It does not explain the effect of seconds or error behavior, but the stated guarantees are concrete and useful.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence provides distinct information: the action, the precondition, the coordinate/unit conventions, and the exit guarantee. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple three-number tool with an output schema, the description covers most of what an agent needs: target behavior, coordinate frame, clamping, and release behavior. The only substantial omission is the role of 'seconds', which prevents full completeness.

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 has no parameter descriptions and 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains x and y conventions and their ranges, but says nothing about the required 'seconds' parameter, leaving a meaningful gap in how to invoke the tool with the correct semantics.

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 action ('Turn the camera') with the input mechanism ('right stick') and a clear precondition ('NO FOCUS NEEDED'). It also distinguishes the tool from sibling client_move by clarifying that this is a camera-look operation, not a movement operation.

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 helpful context ('NO FOCUS NEEDED') and references client_move for units, but it never explicitly states when to choose client_look over client_move or another input tool. The reader must infer that this tool is for camera control rather than character movement.

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