nvr_get_video_resolutions

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: '(read-only)'. However, it says nothing about permissions required, caching, or whether the resolution tables are static or derived from live stream state, leaving behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 compact fragment with no wasted words, and the read-only marker is included up front. It is a noun phrase rather than a sentence, which makes it slightly less front-loaded as an action statement.

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 a zero-parameter read-only call is simple to invoke correctly. Still, the description omits any hint of the distinction from its many sibling 'get_*_config' tools, which is the main thing an agent needs to choose wisely.

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 correctly implies no filtering or selection inputs are needed, consistent with the empty 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?

The description names a specific resource — main/minor stream resolution tables — so an agent knows it returns encoding resolution metadata rather than the broader config returned by siblings like nvr_get_video_config. The verb is implicit in the name rather than stated in the description, and no sibling is explicitly contrasted.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this instead of nvr_get_video_config or nvr_get_image_config, both of which are plausibly adjacent. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative paths are mentioned.

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