report_camera

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it files a GitHub issue, saves a report locally, and automatically removes local cameras with broken links. It also notes a dependency ('gh' CLI), providing full transparency.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and follows with key details and requirements. Every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the main behaviors, conditions for auto-removal, and a dependency. It lacks information about the return value or confirmation, but given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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?

All three parameters (cam_id, status, notes) have clear descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it mentions a snapshot but that appears to be an automatic behavior not tied to a parameter. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: reporting broken or low-quality cameras by filing a GitHub issue and saving locally. It distinguishes from siblings like get_camera_info or explore_cameras, which are about viewing or browsing, not reporting.

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 mentions the requirement for 'gh' CLI and implies the tool is for reporting camera issues (broken/low-quality). It does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the context from sibling tools provides sufficient differentiation.

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