ecamm_preflight

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 useful behavioral context (single call, flags specific failure states) but, with no output schema, does not say what the response actually looks like or how problems are reported.

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 tight sentences: the purpose first, then the concrete check list, then the invocation trigger. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the annotations.

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 parameterless diagnostic tool, the description covers purpose, checked conditions, and when to call it. The one remaining gap is the shape of the result (no output schema exists), so an agent knows what is checked but not exactly what it receives back.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly signals that with "one read-only call", leaving no parameter ambiguity to resolve. Nothing more is needed here.

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?

States a specific function (a pre-show readiness check) and enumerates the exact conditions it evaluates: on air, muted main output or mic, mic at 0, no destination, Preview Mode left on. That enumerated check list makes it clearly distinct from generic siblings like ecamm_status.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: run it before going live, or when the user asks "am I ready?". It does not name a when-not condition or point to a sibling alternative (e.g. ecamm_status) for non-readiness questions, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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