bosch_camera_lighting_schedule_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool raises specific HTTP errors (442 for hardware unsupported, 444 for camera offline), which adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or idempotency.

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 three sentences, starting with the core purpose. It is efficient, but the API endpoint detail could be integrated more concisely.

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 an output schema exists, return values are covered. However, the description lacks parameter help and does not mention any required permissions. For a simple read tool with many siblings, it is adequate 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?

The only parameter 'camera' has a type but no description in the input schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not add any meaning about what the 'camera' parameter expects (e.g., format, ID, or valid values), leaving the agent without guidance to fill it correctly.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource 'LED lighting schedule for one outdoor (Eyes) camera'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bosch_camera_lighting_schedule_set' and 'bosch_camera_light_set'.

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 mentions hardware and connectivity prerequisites and error conditions, but does not explicitly state when this tool should be used versus alternatives (e.g., 'use this to read the schedule, use set to change it'). The guidance is implied but not direct.

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