get_feature

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads and returns feature properties, implying a read-only behavior. However, it does not mention potential side effects or required state (e.g., must be connected).

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 concise with two sentences and an Args block. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and adds parameter details directly after.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are partially covered. The description mentions return fields (value, type, range/options). However, given the camera domain and sibling tools, it lacks context like requiring a connection or that the feature must exist.

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 has 0% coverage for the 'name' parameter, but the description adds meaning: it is a GenICam feature name, case-sensitive, with an example. This provides valuable context beyond the schema.

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 it returns the current value, type, and allowed range/options of a feature. The verb 'returns' and resource 'feature' are specific. Among siblings like 'list_features' and 'set_feature', it distinguishes well.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning prerequisites (e.g., need connection) or exclusions.

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