protect_list_nvrs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying that the tool returns a single NVR object, not an array, and lists the returned fields (id, modelKey, name, etc.). This enhances transparency about the tool's behavior and output.

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 two sentences: first states purpose, second adds critical behavior nuance and field list. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly verbose in the field enumeration. No wasted words.

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 parameters and an output schema present, the description fully clarifies the tool's purpose and return value. It covers the important behavior deviation (single object vs list) and lists key fields. This is complete for a read-only, parameter-less 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?

The input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, but it enriches understanding by detailing the return structure. According to calibration, 0 parameters baseline is 4, and the description meets that.

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 tool retrieves NVR console info, specifying a single NVR object rather than an array. The verb 'Get' and resource 'NVR console info' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like protect_get_camera or protect_list_cameras by focusing on the network video recorder.

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 notes a behavior deviation from the tool name (returns single object vs array), providing important usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or list conditions for not using it.

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