Capture a new 1280x960 photo and return it; set low_light to adjust exposure when lighting is dim. This does not enable infrared lamps or guarantee night vision.
Take and return a new 1280x960 camera photo. low_light adjusts exposure; it does not switch the hardware infrared lamps on or prove night vision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| low_light | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive; the description correctly implies a capture that produces a new artifact. It adds useful concrete detail (1280x960 output) and a real behavioral caveat about what low_light does not do, but says nothing about capture latency, blocking behavior, camera permissions, or failure modes.
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 sentences, zero filler. The core action and output format come first, then the single parameter's caveat, which is exactly the right front-loading for a one-parameter tool.
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-optional-parameter, no-output-schema capture tool, the description covers the action, the image resolution, and the one parameter's real effect and limits. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 0% - the low_light boolean has no description in the schema - so the description must do the work, and it does: it explains that low_light adjusts exposure and explicitly bounds expectations about IR lamps and night vision. That is a genuine semantic contribution beyond the bare boolean type.
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 verb and resource plus the exact resolution: 'Take and return a new 1280x960 camera photo.' That is far more informative than the bare name, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling record_camera, leaving the agent to infer that this takes a still while that one records video.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no reference to the sibling record_camera. The only guidance is implicit: the low_light caveat ('does not switch the hardware infrared lamps on or prove night vision') tells the agent not to reach for it expecting IR lighting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.