nvr_get_video_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is read-only and that include_raw surfaces the unprocessed device reply under data.raw, which is genuinely useful behavioral detail. It omits anything about authentication requirements, failure modes, or per-channel scoping/cost.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the one parameter worth explaining. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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 not be explained, and the description covers the sole optional parameter's effect. For a simple read-only config getter with one flag, this is nearly sufficient; only auth/error behavior is left implicit.

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 explains that include_raw=true additionally returns the unprocessed device reply under data.raw, which is more than the schema's bare title/default conveys. It could still clarify whether the flag affects response size or performance.

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?

Names a specific resource (per-channel video stream config) and enumerates its contents: main/minor resolution, codec, bitrate tables and encoder settings. It is clear what an agent gets back, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related nvr_get_video_resolutions or nvr_get_image_config siblings.

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?

Contains no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, despite several overlapping siblings (nvr_get_video_resolutions, nvr_get_image_config) that an agent could easily confuse it with. The only usage-like statement concerns the include_raw flag, not tool selection.

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