camera_capabilities

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by explaining that listed resolutions are only the advertised WIDTHxHEIGHT values and that named presets like 'D1' and 'CIF' may also be accepted even when unadvertised. This is useful caveat-level behavior information beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each paragraph adds distinct information: what it returns, when to use it, and an important caveat about unadvertised presets. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 capability-inspection tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what to expect, when to call it, and a key behavioral caveat. The main gap is the unexplained camera parameter, but overall the agent can decide when and why to invoke it.

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%, and the only required parameter, 'camera', is never defined in terms of how it should be specified (e.g., camera ID, name, or index). The description refers to devices and multi-channel encoders but does not explain what value the caller should pass for the camera parameter.

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 that the tool reports what a given camera supports: resolutions, rotations, and video inputs. This clearly identifies the resource and scope, and the content distinguishes it from siblings like list_cameras or grab_frame, though it does not use an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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?

The description gives concrete usage guidance: use it before guessing a resolution on an unfamiliar device, or to determine which channel of a multi-channel encoder holds the desired view. It provides clear contexts, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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