camera_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It communicates an important behavioral trait: the call is lightweight and does not transfer an image, making it a safe connectivity check. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but the 'without moving an image' phrasing strongly implies no heavy side effects.

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 short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The first states the return data, and the second adds a valuable use case. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 lookup with an output schema, the description covers the returned information and a canonical use case. It does not specify where the camera value comes from, but that can be reasonably inferred from the sibling tool list_cameras.

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 schema has zero description coverage, and the description only says 'for `camera`', which adds little beyond the parameter name. It does not explain whether camera expects an ID, name, path, or how to obtain a valid value. The description should compensate for the missing schema documentation but does not.

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 the tool returns 'Model, product number and firmware' for a specific camera, which is a concrete resource and output. It is clear enough to distinguish from grab_frame because it explicitly notes it does not move an image, though it does not fully differentiate from camera_capabilities.

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 a clear use context: 'The cheapest way to prove credentials and network reach are good without moving an image.' It implies a contrast with image-transfer operations like grab_frame, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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