nvr_list_motion_windows

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does declare 'read-only' plus the merge/dedup semantics (overlap within min_gap_s merged, windows under min_len_s dropped) — meaningful behavioral context. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error behavior, but covers the operation's core behavior well.

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?

It is a dense but well-ordered paragraph: purpose first, then merge behavior, then time/parameter guidance, then return shape. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the return-shape sentence is arguably redundant given the output schema.

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?

For a complex 8-parameter, zero-annotation tool, the description is close to complete: it explains the merge model, all meaningful parameters, and the default kinds. Minor gaps remain (tz semantics, auth/permission needs), and the return explanation is redundant since an output schema exists.

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 ('1-16 or "all"'), date format, since/until as ISO-8601, kinds default ('motion/smart/alarm'), and the min_gap_s/min_len_s merge semantics. Only tz ('local' default) is left unexplained.

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 verb and resource ('Merged, de-duplicated activity windows for one channel') and clarifies the mechanism by stating it 'Combines the typed recording timeline with event logs.' It implicitly separates itself from nvr_list_events and nvr_list_recording_segments by describing the merge of both, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives real usage guidance for the time selector ('Provide date (YYYY-MM-DD) or since (ISO-8601); optionally narrow with since/until') but offers no when-to-use-vs-alternative routing against siblings like nvr_search_recordings. Usage is implied through parameter guidance rather than explicit task conditions.

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