obsbot_tail2_recenter

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the call returns on acknowledgement only, that arrival cannot be verified (open-loop, no live pose), and that a reset can silently drop AI tracking to none with the recovery tool named. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before invoking a fire-and-forget hardware command.

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-loaded with the action and target state, then the caveats, which is the right ordering. Slightly cluttered by journaling asides ('observed once 2026-09-26', 'Hardware-verified 2026-09-26') that add provenance but little actionable value.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, and the description adequately covers behavior, caveats, and the recovery path for a one-command tool. The remaining gap is the unexplained 'camera' parameter, which an agent would have to guess at.

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% and the single 'camera' parameter has no description in either the schema or the description. The description never says what 'camera' expects (device id, name, index) or that it is optional, so it fails to 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 and resource ('Recenter a Tail 2's gimbal') and pins the target state (yaw 0 / pitch 0 / roll 0), so the agent knows exactly what will result. The 'Tail 2' qualifier differentiates it from the sibling obsbot_gimbal_recenter and from gimbal_move.

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?

Gives an implicit usage cue by noting the AI-tracking side effect and pointing to obsbot_tail2_ai_track as the remedy, which helps an agent decide sequencing. However, it never states when to prefer this over obsbot_tail2_gimbal_move or obsbot_tail2_gimbal_position, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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