get_cameras

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavior: ~3,000 in-service cameras, offline cameras are filtered out, every returned image_url was verified live moments ago, snapshots refresh roughly every minute, stream_url is HLS, and results sort nearest-first when a center is given. This is rich, non-obvious context that helps an agent trust and use the results directly.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by data freshness, filtering, result ordering, and a concrete use case. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers output fields (image_url, stream_url), refresh behavior, offline filtering, filter semantics, and sort order. It provides enough for an agent to call the tool correctly and decide when it is appropriate, without needing to inspect the schema.

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 carries the burden. It explains center as 'lat,lon', states it is required unless route is given, gives route examples ('I-80', '50'), and mentions radius_km. 'limit' is the one parameter not explicitly described, though its name and default make its purpose reasonably inferable.

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?

Description opens with a specific resource: 'Live Caltrans roadside camera snapshots near a point or on a route.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_incidents, get_chain_controls, and get_road_signs by being explicitly about visual camera imagery, not status or incident 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 gives clear usage context: cameras are for letting the user SEE conditions such as fog, snow, or traffic density. It also explains filter semantics ('center required unless route is given', 'route narrows to that highway'). It does not explicitly name alternatives like check_route or get_incidents, but the use case is clear enough that an agent can route correctly.

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