bosch_camera_audio_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the return structure ({microphone_level, speaker_level, intercom_enabled}) and explains the intercom_enabled field can be None. It also mentions the hardware_unsupported error condition. This is sufficient transparency for a read operation.

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?

The description is concise with only 4 sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers scope, error condition, and return details without unnecessary text.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (implied by listing return fields), the description provides all necessary context: purpose, hardware requirements, error behavior, and return structure. It is fully adequate for a single-parameter read 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% (no parameter descriptions in schema). While the description does not explicitly describe the 'camera' parameter, it provides context about which cameras are valid (Gen2 with sound=true), implying the parameter is a camera identifier. However, it does not specify format or constraints on the parameter value, so it partially compensates.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'microphone and speaker level settings', and qualifies it as 'for one Gen2 camera', distinguishing it from sibling tools like bosch_camera_audio_set (set) and bosch_camera_audio_detection_get (get detection settings).

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 description explicitly limits usage to cameras with featureSupport.sound=true, specifically Gen2 Indoor II and Gen2 Outdoor II, and warns that it raises an error for Gen1 or unsupported Gen2 cameras. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for unsupported cases, but the guidance is clear and practical.

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