audit_camera

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the mechanics: six booleans go in, PASS or a detailed failure report comes out. It does not say whether the audit result is recorded/persisted, whether it can be re-run, or what the audit blocks downstream — gaps that matter for a gate-style tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the audit name and scope, then the input convention, then the return shape. No filler, though the parenthetical 'Audit Pass A' adds little without further explanation.

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?

An output schema exists, so the PASS/failure-report return needn't be spelled out, and the description does so briefly anyway. What's missing for a 6-parameter gate tool with zero schema coverage is any explanation of the individual criteria or the pass threshold — an agent can call it but may set the booleans arbitrarily.

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% — the six parameters have only bare titles like 'Framing Breathes' and 'Operator Anticipates Action'. The description only says 'pass True/False for each question', adding nothing about how to judge each criterion or whether all six must be true for PASS. The low-coverage case requires the description to compensate, and it does not.

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: run the 'Final Camera Realism Audit (Audit Pass A — 6 questions)'. It is distinguishable from sibling audit_action and validate_gate by naming Audit Pass A and the camera-realism subject. What 'camera realism' criteria actually mean is left to the schema titles, so it stops short of 5.

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 word 'Final' implies this is run at the end of a camera work pass, and 'Audit Pass A — 6 questions' implies a structured gate check. However, no explicit when-to-use rule, prerequisite phase, or alternative (audit_action, validate_gate, get_gate_criteria) is named, so the agent must infer the trigger condition.

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