bosch_camera_led_brightness_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' and 'API: GET /v11/...' make the read-only nature clear, and the 0-100% plus Gen2-only scope sets expectations. It does not discuss error behaviors, permissions, or what happens on unsupported camera generations, but for a simple read operation this is a reasonable disclosure level.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action, allowed values, and Gen2-only constraint. The position constraint and HTTP endpoint are each stated once and in a structured way, with no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter getter, and the description sufficiently captures the key compatibility, position values, and API endpoint. Since an output schema exists, the return values do not need to be explained. The only real gap is the format/identifier expected for camera, which the API path partially addresses via {id}.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add essential meaning: position must be exactly "top" or "bottom", and the API path maps camera to the {id} placeholder. However, the camera parameter itself is not fully explained, so the agent still has to infer what value to pass.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get top or bottom LED brightness (0-100%)'. It also adds the Gen2-only compatibility constraint and the allowed positions, making it clear this is a read tool. It does not explicitly name the corresponding sibling, bosch_camera_led_brightness_set, to differentiate, so it stops just short of a 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?

'Gen2 cameras only' is an explicit compatibility boundary, and 'position must be "top" or "bottom"' clearly states which reading must be made. The description does not explicitly name an alternative for Gen1 cameras or tell the agent when to prefer this tool over the setter sibling, but the overall usage context is clear.

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