nvr_search_recordings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key 'read-only' trait, which substitutes for a missing readOnlyHint, but says nothing else about behavior (invalid channel handling, result shape, or the include_raw effect). It meets the minimum bar but does not add rich behavioral context.

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 with zero filler; the compatibility/alias fact is front-loaded ahead of the functional description. Efficient, though the parenthetical could be placed to lead even more clearly.

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 described, and the description covers purpose, read-only nature, and the two required parameters well. The only gap is include_raw, which is minor for a simple list tool but not fully resolved.

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 compensate. It adds real meaning for two of three parameters (channel range 1-16, date format YYYY-MM-DD), but include_raw is left entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving one parameter undocumented.

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 ('Lists recorded segments for one channel on one day') and explicitly identifies itself as an alias of nvr_list_recording_segments, which is a sibling tool. An agent can distinguish it from the canonical tool and understand its scope without opening any schema.

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 '(kept for compatibility)' note signals this is a legacy duplicate and points the agent toward the canonical sibling, which is useful routing context. However, it never states an explicit preference or condition ('prefer nvr_list_recording_segments for new work'), so the guidance is implied rather than prescriptive.

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