ecamm_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of behavior beyond that: videos are limited to recent items, which is a real constraint an agent should know. It says nothing about result size, ordering, or whether listings are paginated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or hedging. The enumerated list is slightly redundant with the enum but remains scannable and does not pad the definition.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool this is close to sufficient, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema and no statement of return shape or result limits, and no routing guidance versus the scene/overlay list siblings, an agent still has gaps to infer.

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%, but the single parameter is a self-documenting enum of six values, so the schema carries most of the meaning. The description largely restates those enum values; the one genuine semantic addition is that the videos option yields recent videos only.

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 ('List') and enumerates the resource types it covers (cameras, videos, sounds, audio filters, profiles, destinations), so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like ecamm_list_scenes or ecamm_list_overlays, which cover adjacent categories that are conspicuously absent from this list.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer a sibling tool. The parenthetical '(recent)' on videos is the only scoping hint, and it is not framed as a usage condition.

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