Wait Camera State

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses blocking behavior, timeout behavior, the requirement for fresh OBSERVED confidence rather than stale state, and the success/failure conditions. This is strong behavioral transparency for a waiting/observation tool.

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 core purpose, followed by behavior, usage, and return semantics. It is slightly repetitive ('Blocks until...' and later 'Timeout if value not observed within timeout period'), but overall it remains efficient and readable.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's blocking and timeout behavior, usage context, and success/failure conditions, especially since an output schema exists. However, parameter semantics are mostly unexplained, and the expected_value type and timeout units are omitted, leaving a meaningful gap for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage.

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 the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It references 'expected value' and 'timeout period' but never defines the meaning or format of `camera`, `setting`, `expected_value`, or the units for `timeout`. The mapping from parameters to 'camera capability' is implied but not explicit.

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 ('Wait for') and a specific resource ('camera capability to reach expected value'), and clearly differentiates this tool from its siblings: it blocks and observes rather than listing, setting, or getting state. The phrase 'confirm state changes after set_camera_value' further anchors its distinct role.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to confirm state changes after set_camera_value,' giving clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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