frigate_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context by disclosing that camera results are permission-scoped ("the cameras this user may see"), but it never states that the call is read-only/non-mutating, whether it hits the Frigate API directly, or whether it is expensive or rate-limited.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; each item listed is a distinct piece of returned data. It is a noun-phrase fragment without a leading verb phrase ("Get..."), which slightly weakens scannability but costs no words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields is the primary means of telling an agent what to expect, and it does that reasonably well. It stops short of describing the nesting/shape of the per-camera data, which is the main remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is an empty object with no required fields, consistent with the description's framing as a no-argument status read.

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 enumerates the concrete payload of a status call — version, uptime, permitted cameras, per-camera fps and detection fps — which is far more specific than the name alone. It lacks a verb and never explicitly contrasts with siblings, but the sibling set (list_events, get_event, event_snapshot, latest_frame, list_reviews, review_summary) is entirely event/review-oriented, so the distinction is obvious.

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?

By listing server-level health data (version, uptime, fps), it implicitly signals a health-check/diagnostics use case rather than event inspection. However there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative for the adjacent task of pulling stream frames (latest_frame).

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