capture_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It valuably discloses the return shape (a single contact sheet with timestamps) and its token-efficiency, which matters since there is no output schema. It does not state whether the call blocks for the full duration, camera-access requirements, or limits beyond what the schema implies, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste: what it does and what comes back first, then when to use it. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing piece — the shape and efficiency of the return value — plus usage scenarios. It is nearly complete; only blocking/duration behavior and camera prerequisites would add further value.

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 100%, so fps, camera, region, and seconds are already documented with ranges and defaults in the schema. The description's 'over time' and 'with timestamps' hint at how seconds/fps combine, but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (captures) and resource (a sequence of frames over time) and describes the artifact produced (a token-efficient contact sheet with timestamps). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling capture_image by emphasizing a sequence over time rather than a single frame, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives clear use cases: observing physical motions, LED blink patterns, mechanical movements. This tells the agent what class of problem the tool fits. However, it offers no exclusions or explicit routing against capture_image, watch, or measure, which an agent choosing among 16 siblings would benefit from.

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