obsbot_tail2_wake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it flags that this MOVES the camera physically (gimbal un-stows), that it resumes the media/streaming daemon, that it blocks by polling the WebSocket status push while tolerating brief socket restarts, and gives a ~4–6s latency expectation. These are exactly the side effects and timing an agent needs before invoking a hardware mutation.

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 effect, then the blocking/polling behavior and timing — every sentence contributes. The trailing 'Hardware-verified 2026-11-03' provenance note and the raw endpoint path are slightly tooling-oriented rather than agent-oriented, but they cost little.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema hardware mutation, the description covers side effects, waiting semantics, and success condition (power_on reads true) well. The remaining gap is the unexplained 'camera' parameter, which is the only thing an agent could plausibly get wrong.

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 sole parameter 'camera' is a bare string with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what it expects (device id, index, alias) or what omitting this optional parameter does. All parameter meaning must be guessed.

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 (wake) and resource (a sleeping Tail 2), plus the underlying endpoint POST /camera/sdk/poweron. The 'Tail 2' scoping separates it from the generic obsbot_wake sibling, and the stated precondition ('sleeping') distinguishes it from obsbot_tail2_sleep.

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 precondition 'a sleeping Tail 2' clearly implies when to call it, and the sibling obsbot_tail2_sleep is the obvious inverse. It stops short of explicit routing such as 'do not call if already awake' or naming obsbot_tail2_sleep as the reverse operation, so an agent must infer the exclusion.

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