frigate_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Consulta' implies a read-only query, but the description does not explain how filters like reviewed, severity, cameras, or time bounds behave, whether results are paginated, or what the response contains.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. One vague sentence is not enough for a tool with six parameters and several sibling tools.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter documentation. The description does not explain return values, filtering semantics, supported severity values, camera selection format, or how this relates to frigate_events, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 0% and the description does not mention any of the six parameters. The agent must guess the meaning of after, before, limit, cameras, reviewed, and severity from names and defaults alone, with no help from the description.

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 states that the tool queries Frigate review elements, which identifies the general action and resource, but 'elementos de Review' is vague and does not define what a review element is. It also does not differentiate this tool from close siblings like frigate_events, frigate_stats, or frigate_check.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as frigate_events or frigate_stats. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are mentioned, so the agent cannot determine the appropriate context for invoking it.

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