nvr_get_firewall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait – that the call is read-only/non-mutating – and explains that include_raw=true surfaces the raw reply at data.raw. However it says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or payload size, so the disclosure is partial.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and its contents front-loaded and the optional parameter explained last. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

For a one-optional-parameter read-only getter with an output schema already describing the return shape, the description covers purpose, read-only status, and the only parameter's effect. The missing piece is any indication of prerequisites or when this getter is preferable to related config getters.

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 coverage is 0% and the single boolean is only titled 'Include Raw'. The description compensates by stating exactly what setting it does ('adds the raw reply') and where the result lands ('at data.raw'), which is genuine meaning beyond the 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 names a specific verb+resource ('Firewall configuration') and enumerates what the payload contains (allow/deny lists, protocol/service exposure), which is more concrete than the bare tool name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like nvr_get_network_info, but the overlap risk is low and the scope is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the '(read-only)' tag implies it is safe to call but the description never states a context or alternative. An agent must infer from the tool name alone when this getter is the right choice among ~40 siblings.

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