nvr_find_duplicate_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core logic: grouping key (device uuid) and the staleness rule (online="0" or conn_status!="0"). However, it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating or whether it touches the device, leaving the safety profile to inference.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the qualifying detail (staleness rule) second. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 described, and there are no parameters. The remaining gap is the absence of any guidance on how this relates to the cleanup workflow (nvr_plan_channel_cleanup, nvr_remove_channel), which an agent would need to chain it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('find duplicate channels') and elaborates the mechanism (group by device uuid, flag duplicates). It is clearly distinct from siblings like nvr_remove_channel or nvr_move_channel, though it never explicitly names a sibling to disambiguate.

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 implies this is an analysis step ('removal candidates') but never states when to use it versus related tools such as nvr_plan_channel_cleanup or nvr_list_channels. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sequencing guidance are provided.

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