nvr_list_recording_segments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the operation read-only, enumerates the returned fields and type values, explains include_raw and tz, and discloses an error mode (PROTOCOL_ERROR with payload under data.raw). It omits auth/session requirements and any pagination or size limits, 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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the parameter notes and error behavior. Every clause adds information; there is no filler or restatement 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, yet the description still maps the record fields usefully. For a read-only listing tool this covers what an agent needs, with the only real gap being authentication prerequisites that the sibling nvr_login implies are required.

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: channel range (1-16), date format (YYYY-MM-DD), tz accepted values ('local', 'utc', or IANA zone), and include_raw semantics (adds raw device reply at data.raw). All four parameters are documented with meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 precise resource and scope: a typed recording timeline for one channel (1-16) on one day, with the returned record shape spelled out. That is far more specific than siblings like nvr_get_recording_status, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with nvr_search_recordings, which is the closest alternative.

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 describes what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention when to prefer nvr_search_recordings or nvr_list_motion_windows instead. The single-channel/single-day scope hints at the use case but nothing is stated.

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