nvr_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does meaningfully: it discloses that the tool reports process-scoped failed logins, lockout counters, and a frozen-login flag, and explicitly states 'No network I/O', signaling a cheap, side-effect-free local read. It stops short of stating whether querying it affects lockout state or whether auth is required to call it.

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 compact sentence with the core subject ('NVR session state') front-loaded, followed by a colon-list of the exact fields returned and a terse behavioral note. No filler, no repetition of the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still enumerates the key reported fields. For a zero-param status tool this is nearly complete; the only omission is whether the call has any effect on lockout counters or requires prior authentication.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to compensate for, and the schema is trivially complete.

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 specific resource (NVR session/auth state) and enumerates exactly what it reports: authentication result, failed-login count for this process, lockout counters, and frozen-login flag. This is far more specific than a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like nvr_login or nvr_status, which keeps it from a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. An agent can loosely infer it is used to diagnose authentication state (e.g., after nvr_login or a failed call), but the description never states that context or routes to alternatives.

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