nvr_get_stream_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the URL is redacted, the password is never returned, credentials live in env vars (surfaced as a hint), and the operation is read-only. It omits whether login/auth is required first and any rate or expiry behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose (redacted RTSP URL) in the first clause, then adds compact parameter and safety detail. It is appropriately sized with no filler, though the parenthetical details make the middle slightly dense.

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 structure need not be explained. Combined with the compensating parameter detail and the credential/redaction disclosure, the description is nearly complete for a two-param read tool; missing only auth prerequisites.

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, and it does: it documents channel range (1-16) and the stream mapping (1=main, 2=sub). Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema titles, though the default value of stream=1 is only implied.

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 and resource: returns a redacted live RTSP URL for a channel. It clearly identifies what the tool produces and scopes it (channel 1-16, main/sub stream). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like nvr_get_rtsp_status or nvr_enable_rtsp, so it falls 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?

The description implies the tool's use case (fetching a stream URL) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as nvr_get_rtsp_status or nvr_enable_rtsp. An agent must infer selection criteria on its own.

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