validation.camera_visibility

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

The description adds 'Risk: read' and 'maturity: L3,' which partly aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) but adds no new behavioral context. It does not describe what is validated, what inputs affect the result, or any other observable behavior. No contradiction with annotations, but the value added beyond annotations is minimal.

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 and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than deliberately concise. The two sentences mostly repeat available metadata and do not earn their place by adding usability information. This is closer to a stub than a crafted summary.

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?

This is an 8-parameter tool with nested objects and a validation purpose, yet the description gives essentially no operational context. An agent cannot determine what the tool checks, what values to pass for 'camera' or 'objects', or how frameStart/frameEnd are used. The existence of an output schema does not make up for the missing input and purpose semantics.

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 only 38% and the main parameters (camera, frameStart, frameEnd, objects) have no descriptions. The tool description provides zero information about these parameters. It does not compensate for the schema gaps, leaving an agent unable to infer the meaning or format of key inputs.

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 does not state what the tool does; it only restates the command name ('validation.camera_visibility') and adds risk/maturity metadata. There is no verb or resource indicating the actual check being performed, and no differentiation from sibling validation tools like validation.foot_drift or validation.limb_length.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other validation tools. The only requirement mentioned is that 'per-request argument checks and session policy still apply,' which is generic harness policy, not usage context or selection criteria.

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