obsbot_tail2_focus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the dual read/write contract, that the camera errors on position outside mf, and that the tool proactively refuses that invalid combination. It does not mention permission requirements, device-state prerequisites, or what happens on other failure paths.

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 dense sentences, no filler, with the read/write contract front-loaded and the constraint on position following immediately. Every clause carries operational information.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description covers the return value of a bare call ('reports the mode, and the position when in mf') and the key validity constraint, which is enough to invoke it correctly. The undocumented 'camera' parameter and unspecified non-guard error behavior are minor 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 does for two of three parameters: it restates the mode enum and, more importantly, supplies the cross-parameter constraint that position is only meaningful in mf and rejected otherwise. The 'camera' parameter is never mentioned in either schema or description, which is the remaining 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Read (bare call) or set the Tail 2's focus') and immediately enumerates the controllable fields (mode, position), so the agent knows exactly what the tool touches. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near siblings such as obsbot_tail2_focus_point, obsbot_focus_auto, or obsbot_focus_manual, leaving that routing to inference.

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?

It clearly states the read path (bare call) versus the write path and gives a hard conditional: position is only valid in mf, and the tool refuses rather than letting the camera error. That is concrete when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for cases outside its scope.

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