bosch_camera_darkness_threshold_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the GET endpoint, the read-only nature through 'Get', the camera-generation limitation, and the interpretation of ranges (0% = always day, 100% = always night). This is useful contextual behavior beyond just restating the tool's name. It does not go into authentication or rate limits, but those are not present in any annotation and may not be expected for a simple GET.

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 extremely concise: three short lines cover the high-level operation, compatibility, value semantics, and the HTTP endpoint. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action.

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 one-parameter read-only operation, the description covers the purpose, important range interpretation, and API endpoint. An output schema exists and can define the response format. But because annotations and schema param descriptions are absent, the description falls short of fully explaining the camera param, and it doesn't mention whether any special auth or camera state is needed. It is useful but not fully complete.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'camera', and the schema gives no description for it. The description's API line, 'GET /v11/video_inputs/{id}/lighting', obliquely suggests that the camera parameter corresponds to an ID, but it never explicitly maps 'camera' to '{id}' or explains expected values or format. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more decisively.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('day/night lighting threshold and fading mode'), and it adds a compatibility restriction ('Gen2 cameras only'). It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself, but the tool name and the read-oriented phrasing make its purpose unmistakable. A small deduction because it doesn't contrast itself with related tools like bosch_camera_darkness_threshold_set or bosch_camera_lighting_schedule_get.

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 gives a clear compatibility constraint: 'Gen2 cameras only.' This implies when not to use the tool, but it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when reading the threshold; use darkness_threshold_set when writing' or identify alternative siblings. The usage context is mostly inferable from the name and context signals, but it lacks direct when-to-use vs. alternative guidance.

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