run_camera_validation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important side effects: installing an APK, temporarily closing the built-in camera app, waking the board, granting CAMERA permission, returning a job ID, and saving files per run. It still does not cover job polling behavior or any permission prerequisites beyond the temporary grant.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by behavioral details. There is no filler, and every clause provides useful context.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral effects and return value (job ID, per-run file saving). The notable gap is parameter guidance, especially camera_id and suite defaults, but the core invocation context 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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It references capture/control validation, which loosely maps to the suite enum, but it never explains camera_id or the defaults, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 and resource: install the built diagnostic APK and start YUV capture/control validation. It clearly scopes the operation to diagnostic camera validation and mentions the job ID return, making it distinguishable from build/probe siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'built diagnostic APK' and 'validation,' suggesting it should be called after building. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus build_camera_probe, get_camera_capabilities, or other siblings, nor does it state exclusions.

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