dahua_nvr_channel_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says 'Get video input status,' which implies a read operation but does not disclose what the status contains, whether it is safe to call frequently, or any potential side effects. No additional context is given beyond what the name already suggests.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise, with no fluff or redundancy, and every word earns its place. This is an appropriately sized description for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but has gaps. It does not explain what 'video input status' includes or what the return format looks like. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more context about the result, but it remains sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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 100% for the single parameter device_id, which is already described as 'Dahua NVR device ID'. The description adds no further parameter semantics, but the high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3. The description does not compensate or enhance the schema information.

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 'Get video input status of channels on a Dahua NVR' uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('video input status of channels'), and a device scope ('Dahua NVR'). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like dahua_nvr_recording_status or dahua_nvr_get_channels, which focus on different aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context like whether to prefer this over dss_channel_status or other status tools. There is zero usage direction beyond the basic action.

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