nvr_get_users

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load and does well: it declares the operation read-only, guarantees credentials are never returned, and explains the redaction behavior of include_raw. It omits auth requirements and pagination, which keeps it short of 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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the payload scope and safety guarantee are front-loaded before the optional-parameter note.

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 detail is not required, and the description covers scope, safety, and the one parameter. The missing piece is authentication prerequisites, which is relevant given the nvr_login and nvr_auth_status siblings.

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 for the single parameter, and it does: include_raw=true is explained as adding the redacted raw reply at data.raw, giving both effect and output location. Only the default value is left to 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?

States a specific verb+resource (get NVR user accounts) and immediately bounds the payload: 'names and groups only (credentials are never returned)'. No sibling in the list covers user accounts, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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 read-only framing and the scope statement imply the use case (inspecting who has accounts and what groups they belong to), but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite (e.g. nvr_login first), or alternative-selection guidance. With no overlapping sibling, the gap is tolerable rather than harmful.

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