nvr_list_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral color beyond the schema: 'read-only', 'best-effort' (results may be incomplete), and that only events with a 'parseable time' are filtered. However it says nothing about authentication/session requirements, result caps, or pagination, which matters given the nvr_login sibling in this family.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then parameter guidance, then the side-effect of include_raw. No filler, though the parenthetical category list and 'and similar' hedge add slight looseness.

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 correctly omitted, and the two optional params are covered. The gap is operational context: nothing about whether a login/session is required before calling, which is a meaningful omission in an NVR tool family that includes nvr_login and nvr_auth_status.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry both parameters and it does: 'since' is documented as an ISO-8601 timestamp whose effect is to drop older events with parseable times, and 'include_raw' is documented as adding the raw reply at data.raw. This is nearly complete, missing only the no-argument default behavior.

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 ('list of recent NVR events/alerts'), enumerates the event categories (disk, network, video-loss) and marks it read-only, which distinguishes it from siblings like nvr_list_motion_windows and nvr_list_recording_segments. It does not name an alternative explicitly, so it stops 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 explains how to use the 'since' parameter but gives no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus nvr_list_motion_windows, nvr_search_recordings, or nvr_get_recording_status. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated, only a usage mechanic for one parameter.

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