nvr_get_image_config

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does declare 'read-only' and explains that include_raw adds the raw device reply at data.raw, which is genuine value. It omits auth/permission requirements, behavior for out-of-range channels, and failure modes, so it only partially covers the burden.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler; the scope and channel constraint lead, and the optional-parameter note follows. 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 no explanation, and both parameters plus the read-only nature are documented. It is nearly complete; only auth/permission context and out-of-range channel behavior are unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it constrains channel to 1-16 (absent from the schema) and explains include_raw's effect and its output location (data.raw). Both parameters receive meaning beyond their bare type/title.

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 the specific resource and sub-domains ('Image, OSD, privacy-mask (cover) and ROI configuration for one channel'), which is far more informative than the tool name alone and implicitly separates it from nvr_get_video_config and nvr_get_detection_config. It never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is implied by 'read-only' plus the single-channel scoping, which tells an agent this is a safe per-channel config read. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion (e.g. 'use nvr_get_video_config for stream/encoding settings'), and no prerequisites such as login/auth being required.

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