list_cameras

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format ('Bounds search JSON with enriched image_url per camera') and the behavior of active_only, adding useful context. It does not mention any side effects, but the operation is inherently read-only.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose, usage, parameter list, and return type. Every sentence contributes value, with no 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?

Given an output schema exists, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage, parameters, and return shape. It is complete for a moderately complex tool even without annotations.

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 fully documents all parameters: 'min_lat, min_lon, max_lat, max_lon: Bounding box (WGS84)', 'limit: Max cameras to return (1–100, default 100)', and 'active_only: If true, return only camera_class=open'. This adds complete meaning beyond the bare 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 'List traffic cameras within a map bounding box,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cameras_by_radius by specifying the bounding-box query type.

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 explicitly provides a usage trigger: 'Use when the user asks for cameras in a visible map area or geographic rectangle.' However, it does not mention when not to use or name alternatives directly, though the sibling context implies them.

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