bi_get_camera_snapshot

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety; the description adds the base64 return format and clarifies that the agent, not the tool, is responsible for writing to disk. This goes beyond the annotation without describing every failure mode.

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 tightly written sentences lead with the operation and endpoint, then cover output format and use cases. Every phrase adds value and there is no repetition of schema content.

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 simple read-only action with no output schema, the description explains the HTTP endpoint, the return encoding (base64), the side-effect behavior, and intended use cases. The agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents 'camera' and 'raw'. The description only reinforces the camera short name through the endpoint template, adding no meaningful semantic information beyond the 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 description names a concrete verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a single current JPEG frame from a camera'), and the underlying endpoint, making it easy to distinguish from alert/clip-based siblings like bi_get_alert_image.

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?

Three concrete use cases are given (live-coverage cross-referencing, PTZ preset verification, still capture) and it explicitly frames the tool as an alternative to the alert/clip pipeline. It does not name sibling tools directly, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to know when to call it.

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