bosch_camera_privacy_masks_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds valuable context: coordinates are normalized 0.0-1.0 and masked areas are permanently blacked out in live view and recordings. This helps the agent understand the return format and the persistent effect of masks. However, it does not mention what happens for invalid cameras or empty mask lists, which might be covered by the output 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?

The description is two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the purpose, the second adds crucial behavioral detail. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the primary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality and output semantics. It does not address error scenarios or prerequisites, but for a read operation with a straightforward schema, this is reasonable. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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%: the description adds no information about the 'camera' parameter beyond its name. The schema already specifies it as a required string, so the description does not compensate by explaining the format (e.g., camera ID, IP, or URL) or any constraints. With only one parameter, even minimal elaboration would help.

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 tool lists privacy-mask zone rectangles for a single camera. The verb 'List' and resource 'privacy-mask zone rectangles' are specific. The tool name itself distinguishes from siblings like bosch_camera_privacy_masks_set and bosch_camera_privacy_masks_clear, and no other sibling lists similar data.

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 implies when to use it (to retrieve existing masks), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., camera must exist), or alternatives. The purpose is clear, but no usage boundaries are set.

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