cam_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly which camera properties are returned, which is useful given there is no output schema. It does not mention error behavior for nonexistent cameras, but for a simple read-only getter this is a minor gap.

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 front-loaded, presenting the core purpose in the first clause and then listing the specific returned attributes. The bilingual repetition is acceptable and does not add unnecessary bulk; every sentence serves to clarify the tool's behavior.

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 tool with one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description is largely sufficient: it names the parameter and the returned fields. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting error behavior or output format, but these are not critical for selecting and invoking this simple getter.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'camera' parameter with the description 'Camera name.' The tool description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter, so it does not exceed the baseline established by the schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('a camera'), and enumerates the exact details returned: position, field of view, focal length, and active viewport status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cam_list, cam_set, and cam_create by focusing on read-only retrieval of one camera's properties.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving details of a specific camera, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as cam_list for listing cameras or cam_set for modifying them. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the usage context inferred rather than stated.

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