reachy_check_camera

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

No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that a test frame will be captured, but doesn't say whether the frame is stored, returned, discarded, whether this has side effects on the camera stream, or what the success/failure response looks like.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and method without fltelling. Every word contributes meaning, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple and parameterless, so the description is largely sufficient for invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the exact result format or criteria for 'working' remains unspecified, leaving a small but real gap.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. Since there are no inputs to explain, the description has no parameter semantics burden beyond confirming the operation takes no arguments.

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 has a specific verb ('Check'), a clear resource ('robot's camera'), and a concrete method ('capturing a test frame'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reachy_capture_image, which is about capturing an image rather than checking camera health.

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 intended use case—verifying the camera works—is implied by the purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over reachy_capture_image or reachy_status, nor any stated exclusion conditions. The usage context is clear enough but not fully clarified.

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