nvr_get_rtsp_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully declares 'Read-only', names the exact config field checked (onvif_server.onvif.enabled) and the port resolution (default 554, VIGI_NVR_RTSP_PORT). However it omits practical behavior such as whether the TCP probe can block/timeout, auth requirements, or rate limits for a connectivity check.

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 front-loaded sentence covering both checks, with the read-only nature appended. No filler; every clause carries information (enabled flag, port default, root requirement).

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-value explanation is not required, and the description covers the two states it reports plus read-only safety. It is nearly complete; only behavioral detail beyond what an agent needs to call a zero-param probe tool is thin.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because none is needed, and the schema is fully described (100% coverage).

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 ('Report') and resource ('whether ONVIF/RTSP is enabled' + RTSP port TCP reachability), and even names the underlying config key and port constant. An agent can distinguish it from nvr_enable_rtsp (write) and nvr_get_stream_url without opening any schema.

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 rather than stated – it's a diagnostic check that would naturally precede nvr_get_stream_url or nvr_enable_rtsp, and 'Read-only' implicitly signals it is the non-mutating counterpart to nvr_enable_rtsp. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so guidance is only implied.

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