Stage View Eyecam

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the blocking/queue behavior, the no-op outside VR with a non-error frames 0 response, the fps 0 coercion to 1, the 600-frame ceiling, the reply shape {frames, first, last}, and that it emits no events. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the remaining sentences are dense with distinct operational facts; nothing is filler. It is telegraphic in places ('Emits: nothing') but that suits an agent-facing spec.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully summarizes the reply as {frames, first, last}, and it covers the VR precondition, queue blocking, and fps coercion. The main gap is the unexplained required 'scene' parameter, which leaves a required input ambiguous for a capture operation.

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% and there are 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains the fps edge case ('fps 0 is read as 1'); the required 'scene' parameter is never mentioned and 'seconds' is only indirectly implied by the timelapse framing. A caller cannot tell what 'scene' expects.

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 a specific verb ('Record a timelapse') and specific resource ('the left eye in VR'), plus format ('one PNG per frame') and a hard cap ('up to 600 frames'). The page command name 'eyecam' further disambiguates it from the many other stage_view_* siblings.

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?

'Outside VR it records nothing and replies frames 0' gives a concrete precondition for when the tool is meaningful, and 'blocks the command queue' warns of the cost. It does not, however, name an alternative sibling (e.g. stage_view_snapshot) for non-VR or single-frame capture, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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