bosch_camera_lens_elevation_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so well: 'GET' implies read-only access, 'configured' indicates it returns an existing setting rather than changing it, and the Gen2-only restriction is disclosed. It also explains why the value matters, which goes beyond the machine-readable schema.

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 with no fluff: the purpose and unit are front-loaded, the compatibility caveat is prominent, and the API path provides useful reference. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the operation, scope, units, end-to-end reason, and API shape. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state that `camera` must be a video input id or name, but the endpoint template largely fills that in.

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 schema provides no per-parameter description, so the description must help map the lone `camera` parameter. The endpoint path suggests that `{id}` corresponds to `camera`, and the unit/direction of the value is clear, but the mapping is implicit rather than explicit. That is a useful clue but not a full parameter explanation.

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 the exact action ('Get'), the resource ('configured lens mounting height'), the unit (meters), and a key constraint (Gen2 only). The companion setter is clearly distinguished, and the endpoint path is included for disambiguation.

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?

Mentions a concrete use case (perspective correction in person detection) and limits the tool to Gen2 cameras, giving an explicit applicability constraint. It does not name alternative tools or provide a when-not-to-use strategy, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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