bosch_camera_unread_get

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It transparently discloses the reading from the /v11/video_inputs listing, the failure of the direct endpoint, and the return structure. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a read-only operation, this is adequate.

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 short (3 sentences) and front-loads the purpose. It includes a parenthetical about testing, which is helpful but slightly informal. No waste, but could be more structured.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, simple return), the description covers the essential behavior and return format. It lacks error handling details but is complete enough for a straightforward tool, especially with an output schema presumably available.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'camera' parameter, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter name. It does not specify the format (e.g., ID, name) or any constraints, leaving the parameter unclear.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'unread event count for one camera'. It distinguishes itself by specifying the exact data source and noting a workaround for a failed endpoint, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving unread event counts but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to guidance is provided, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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