peek

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the interactive nature ('wait for them to press space... or Escape to cancel'), the return value ('Returns the photo as an image plus the path where it was saved'), and the parameter defaults. It does not mention potential errors or permission issues, but the core blocking behavior is transparent.

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 well-structured with the main behavior front-loaded, followed by return value and usage context, then parameter details. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the length is appropriate for a tool with no other documentation sources.

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 tool with two simple parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, and parameter meanings. It could mention what happens on cancellation or return format, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must fully define the parameters. It does: 'max_side: longest edge in pixels for the returned image' and 'device: camera index if the user has more than one.' Both meanings are clearly explained, including defaults, fully compensating for the schema's lack of detail.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Open a live camera preview so the user can position an item, then wait for them to press space to take the photo (or Escape to cancel).' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (camera capture), making the purpose unmistakable even without siblings to contrast.

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 says 'Call this when you need to see a physical object, document, or scene,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. There are no sibling tools to compare against, and it does not mention exclusions, but the guidance is unambiguous for the intended use case.

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