get_camera_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does well by disclosing the API auth mechanism, the 403 failure mode, and that the tool returns image bytes rather than a URL. It reveals important server-side behavior that an agent would otherwise not know.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then provides only essential context about the auth requirement, followed by a brief parameters and returns section. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the input meaning, the return value, and why the tool exists. The sibling tools provide camera discovery context, so this description is complete on its own.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully: it explains that asset_id is a Vancam camera asset ID and notes it should be provided as an integer represented as a string. This is exactly the meaning an agent needs beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get the live frame for a camera by asset_id," clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling camera-listing tools. It also specifies the unique return (live image bytes) and mentions the camera asset ID as input.

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 explains when this tool is needed: it fetches the frame server-side because a bare URL fetch would result in 403 Forbidden due to the required x-api-key header. This gives clear context for using the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions.

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