bi_get_camera_motion_config

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by explaining the tool is read-only by design and that the camconfig set-half is a silent no-op in 5.9.9.71. It also discloses admin-required access, stale-reg avoidance, and the exact return structure. No contradiction with annotations; a strong behavioral disclosure overall.

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 dense but information-rich, front-loading the core purpose and then delivering precise exclusions and edge-case behavior. It earns its length by distinguishing this sibling-heavy tool from nearby alternatives and naming specific return keys, though it could be marginally trimmed without losing meaning.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a good picture of return shape and key limitations. It tells the agent the admin requirement, the no-op caveat, what is NOT included, and where to get AI thresholds and zone polygons. The only minor gap is the absence of the camera short-name discovery path, but that is already handled by the required parameter and sibling tools.

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% for both parameters (short and raw are documented there). The description doesn't dwell on parameters, but it adds useful context for what the raw flag returns (verbatim motion_raw/post_raw twins), which complements the schema without needing to repeat it.

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 that the tool reads live motion and post-trigger settings from BI's admin camconfig cmd, explicitly distinguishing it from bi_get_reg(key_path='Motion'). It also enumerates the returned fields (motion, post, motion_raw, post_raw), so an agent can confidently identify the tool's purpose and scope.

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 says to use this tool instead of bi_get_reg(key_path='Motion') when tuning sensitivity/contrast/breaktime to avoid stale .reg exports, and explicitly directs AI threshold queries to bi_get_reg(key_path='AI\<n>'), noting trigger-zone polygons remain in bi_get_reg. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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