List an OBSBOT Tail 2's three preset slots to check occupancy, decoded name, and stored pitch/yaw/roll pose with zoom ratio for slots 1–3.
List a Tail 2's three preset slots: occupied/empty, decoded name, and pose in degrees + zoom ratio (pitch/yaw/roll/ratio). Slot numbers are 1–3 (the camera's own ids are 0-based; mapped for consistency with the Tiny 2 preset tools).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| camera | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses real behavior: exactly three slots, an id-mapping quirk (camera ids 0-based, exposed as 1–3 for consistency with Tiny 2 tools), and the decoded contents of each slot. It is clearly a non-destructive read. It stops short of permissions, connection state, or error behavior.
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 sentences, zero padding, and the return-value content is front-loaded before the 1–3 slot-numbering note, which is exactly the fact an agent needs before calling.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape — and it does, listing occupancy, decoded name, and pose fields. Only the 'camera' selector and failure/disconnected behavior are unaddressed, which is minor for a read-only listing tool.
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% and the single optional 'camera' parameter is never mentioned, so the schema and description together leave it undocumented. The param is optional and its meaning is inferable from sibling tools, which keeps this from being a hard failure, but the description does not compensate for the coverage 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 (list a Tail 2's preset slots) and even enumerates the returned fields (occupied/empty, name, pose degrees + zoom ratio). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling preset mutators (save/recall/delete/rename) by being the read path, and from the generic obsbot_preset_list by being Tail 2-scoped.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to inspect slots before recalling or renaming, but the description never says when to prefer it over obsbot_preset_list or the other Tail 2 preset tools, and gives no prerequisites (e.g., device must be connected).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.