camera_focus

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

The description discloses a physical limitation (minimum focusing distance) and the live-view context, which adds behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, if it requires specific camera states, or what side effects it might have on the camera state beyond the motor movement.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey the action, parameter meaning, and a key physical limitation. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 covers the core behavior and one limitation, but it lacks explanations for the 'size' and 'steps' parameters and does not describe return values or error scenarios. The existence of an output schema partially compensates for the return value gap, but the overall description is not fully complete for a 3-parameter tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'direction' parameter (near/far) but does not explain 'size' or 'steps'. The enum values for 'size' (small/medium/large) and the purpose of 'steps' remain ambiguous, leaving the description insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 action (drive focus motor) and context (during live view), and defines the direction semantics (near/far). It easily distinguishes itself from sibling tools like camera_capture and camera_set, which have different purposes.

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 clearly implies the tool is for adjusting focus during live view, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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