track_camera

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent behavior; the description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that it auto-picks the most view-like matrix slot, allows `source` to override that selection, and uses eye-position movement across frames as a confirmation signal. This is useful operational context beyond the annotations.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in a single concise sentence, followed by useful selection guidance and a confirmation hint. The second sentence is slightly dense, but it avoids redundancy and earns its place.

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 output schema and annotations reduce the burden for return formatting and safety, and the description covers the tool's workflow well. However, given 0% schema coverage and a required `trace` parameter, the lack of guidance on what `trace` refers to and what `calls`/`limit` filter leaves an important invocation gap.

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 carry parameter meaning, but only `source` is explained (as a slot name from find_matrices). The required `trace` parameter is not described, and `calls`, `limit`, and `max_frames` receive no semantic explanation in the description either.

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 states a specific verb ('follow') and a precise output set: world position, forward vector, and FOV. It distinguishes itself from find_matrices by explaining that this tool selects the most view-like matrix slot automatically, rather than simply returning matrices.

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?

It gives clear context: use it to track the camera across frames, and if the automatic slot is not enough, pass `source` with a slot name from find_matrices. It even suggests the confirmation workflow before moving to Ghidra/ReGenny, though it does not state explicit conditions for when not to use it or how it compares with decode_matrix.

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