bi_get_ptz_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds rich behavioral detail: all BI fields are passed through, two derived helpers are added, preset_map indexing and filtering behavior is explained, and active_preset is conditionally present. This goes well beyond the annotations and clearly shapes agent expectations.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then compactly lists pass-through fields and explains derived helpers and prerequisites. Every sentence adds necessary information and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return data. It enumerates the pass-through fields, describes both derived helpers in detail, covers edge cases like undefined/empty descriptions, and states the required camera condition. Together with the schema, an agent has enough to invoke the tool 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 input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds only the PTZ-enabled prerequisite relevant to the camera parameter and does not meaningfully expand on the raw parameter, leaving the baseline at 3.

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 operation: retrieving PTZ state for one camera. It also distinguishes this from sibling camera-related tools by emphasizing PTZ-specific fields and derived helpers, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to get PTZ state for a single camera. It also provides a key prerequisite, 'Camera must have PTZ enabled in BI,' which guides proper usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the PTZ-focused purpose is clear enough.

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