Duck camera

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses 'Read-only, never moves the robot,' the PNG output format, what each view means, and the divergent behavior across transports (sim, hardware, mock). This goes beyond typical tool descriptions and clearly sets expectations for the agent.

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?

Three concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by view details and then safety/availability. Every sentence carries necessary information, and there is no redundant filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 small camera tool with no output schema, the description covers the key context: return type, view semantics, safety, and transport limitations. It leaves minor gaps such as exact behavior on unsupported transports or how the placeholder looks, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is low at 33%, and the description compensates well for the `view` parameter by explaining each enum value's meaning. However, `width` and `height` receive no semantic explanation beyond the schema's numeric bounds and defaults. The tool's output as an image makes them somewhat self-explanatory, but the description still leaves those parameters underspecified.

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 clearly states the tool returns a still frame as a PNG image, naming the resource (duck_camera) and the action. It also breaks down the view options, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool names that are all about version, health, updates, stop, monitoring, walking, and behavior.

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 provides clear context on when the tool is usable ('Available on the sim transport today', hardware not wired yet, mock returns placeholder) and explicitly says it is read-only. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the siblings are clearly not camera alternatives, so the guidance is sufficient without exclusions.

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