ptz

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers rich behavioral disclosure. It specifies action semantics (momentary move, held for duration_s, capped at 3.0), requires preset for goto_preset (0-99), and explicitly warns about erratic movement caused by simultaneous PTZ sources. This goes far beyond a simple 'moves a camera' and covers side effects and limitations.

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 yet information-dense: a clear purpose sentence, a structured list of actions with constraints, and a final caution paragraph. Every sentence adds operational value or a critical caveat, and code-formatting for parameters improves scannability.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers all necessary operational knowledge: valid actions, parameter constraints, prerequisite hardware checks, and environmental caveats about competing PTZ pipelines. An agent can safely decide when to invoke and how to construct arguments.

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 zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does thoroughly: 'action' values are enumerated with meanings, 'duration_s' is explained as seconds with a 3.0 cap, 'preset' is described as required for goto_preset with a 0-99 range, and 'camera' is implied to be a PTZ-capable camera. This fully compensates for 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 opening sentence clearly states the tool's function: 'Pan/tilt/zoom a PTZ-capable camera, or jump to a saved preset.' It names the resource (PTZ-capable camera) and specific verb actions, and the subsequent list of actions (left, right, up, down, home, zoom, stop, goto_preset) distinguishes it from sibling read-only tools like list_cameras and get_snapshot.

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 explicitly instructs users to verify PTZ capability via list_cameras' ptz_capable field before using, which is a clear when-to-use precondition. It also warns against sending competing PTZ commands when an automated pipeline is active, effectively stating when not to use the tool. This is exceptional guidance beyond a generic 'use to control camera.'

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