get_camera_details

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only operation.' It adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotation by enumerating the returned fields and explaining the ID-then-name resolution order. It stops short of describing failure modes or output structure, but the added context is meaningful.

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?

The description is well-organized: a crisp function statement, a concise read-only behavior summary, clear usage routing, and a compact Args block. Every sentence serves a purpose and nothing is redundant or filler.

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 read-only lookup with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, prerequisite, alternatives, parameter resolution behavior, and a summary of returned data. No critical information needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one genuinely useful semantic detail: 'camera is resolved by ID first and then by name.' The Args section mostly mirrors the schema, but this resolution behavior gives extra meaning to camera_id beyond the schema text.

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 opening sentence, 'Get the full configuration and runtime record for one Protect camera,' states a specific verb, resource, and singular scope. It also names sibling tools (get_camera_snapshot, get_camera_health_summary) to distinguish this from related operations.

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 explicitly says 'Use list_cameras first to find the camera_id' and gives concrete alternatives with their conditions: get_camera_snapshot for an image and get_camera_health_summary for connectivity-only. This is clear when-to-use guidance with no inference required.

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