nvr_describe_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is read-only and that the described call's mutation status is part of the result, but it omits authentication needs, error behavior, and any rate-limit or side-effect context.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently packs the tool's purpose, required arguments, output content, and read-only nature into minimal space.

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 in the description. However, with three required parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no annotations or usage guidance, the definition leaves the agent without enough information to know what module, method, and key values to supply.

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%, so the description must compensate but does not. It repeats the parameter names (module, method, key) in order without explaining what values are valid, how to obtain them, or what each identifier means, adding almost no semantic value beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('one call') and identifies the required triple (module, method, key). It clearly contrasts with execution-oriented siblings like nvr_call by emphasizing description and read-only behavior, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for selecting this tool over nvr_call, nvr_raw_call, or nvr_get_module_spec, and no prerequisites. The only hint is 'Read-only,' which implies a metadata-inspection role but does not tell the agent when that role is appropriate.

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