bosch_camera_wifi

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the API call is a GET request, details the returned fields with units and examples, and implies read-only behavior. Does not cover error handling or rate limits, but is otherwise transparent.

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?

Concise, well-structured with a code block for API path and returned fields. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 simple nature (one parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description covers the output format and usage context completely. No gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'for one camera' but does not elaborate on how to specify the camera (e.g., ID, name, or format). Minimal guidance beyond purpose.

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 it gets WiFi signal quality for one camera, specifying the API endpoint and exact data returned (RSSI, SSID, signal_strength). It is distinct from sibling tools which cover other camera operations.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: diagnosing connectivity issues, stream drops, and deciding on prefer_local=True. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but context is clear and sufficient for a read-only diagnostic tool.

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