obsbot_tail2_exposure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: bare call reads whichever set the current mode exposes, manual values exist only in manual mode, face/evbias only in auto, plus an edge-case quirk about finer-than-documented ISO granularity. It still omits error/conflict behavior (e.g., passing iso while in auto) and auth requirements.

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?

Front-loads the core read/set behavior, then organizes the mode-specific detail efficiently. Dense but every clause adds usable information; the trailing ISO-granularity note is a worthwhile edge-case, not filler.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly across both modes. The unnamed 'camera' parameter and unstated conflict handling are the only notable omissions.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it documents 5 of 6 parameters with real semantics: mode (manual|auto), face (face-priority AE global|face), evbias range and step, iso range, and shutter range/format. Only the 'camera' parameter is left undocumented, which is a modest gap.

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+resource: read (bare call) or set the Tail 2's exposure. Clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling obsbot_image_exposure_auto / obsbot_image_exposure_manual tools, so sibling differentiation is only implicit via the device prefix.

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?

Clearly explains the two invocation modes (bare call to read, params to set) and the mode-dependent conditions under which parameters apply. It does not, however, name alternatives to route to or state when-not-to-use conditions, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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