diagnoseCameraConnectivity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the categories of evidence returned and the boundary that it will not perform active tests or power-cycle the device. It does not mention permissions, latency, or pagination of 'recent sessions', which keeps it from 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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The capability is front-loaded and the negative scope follows, which is the right order for an agent scanning the definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately names the kinds of evidence returned (connection state, VLAN/signal, recent sessions), which is enough to decide whether to call it. It does not describe the shape of the response or how 'recent sessions' is bounded, a minor gap for a two-parameter diagnostic tool.

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 only 50% because the required 'identifier' parameter has no schema description, so the description carries real weight by specifying that it accepts an IP, a hostname, or a MAC address. That is precisely the missing meaning. The siteId parameter is left to the schema, which documents it well.

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 ('Read-only camera network evidence by IP, hostname or MAC') and enumerates what the evidence covers (current connection, VLAN/signal details, recent sessions). It is clearly a diagnostic read rather than a configuration tool, though it does not name a specific sibling (e.g. diagnoseClient) it should be preferred over.

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?

Gives clear conditions for use (identify the camera by IP, hostname or MAC) and explicit scope exclusions: it does not test video decoding/inference and does not power-cycle a camera. What is missing is a named alternative for those excluded cases, so the agent knows where to go instead.

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