list_cameras

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains important nuances, such as the difference between is_no_signal and is_online, which prevents misinterpretation of camera health. It also specifies that is_no_signal indicates a specific grey placeholder image, adding useful behavioral context beyond a simple field list.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides detailed field semantics. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential meaning of key fields. It explains the critical distinction between is_online and is_no_signal, which is likely not obvious from schema alone. It could mention whether the list is sorted or if any filtering options exist, but these are not necessary for a basic list operation.

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 tool accepts no parameters, and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters. It instead focuses on output meaning, which is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'List configured Blue Iris cameras with live health status.' This uses a concrete verb and resource, and the additional field definitions further clarify what the tool returns. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_snapshot and list_alerts, so there is no ambiguity.

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 used when you need to enumerate cameras and their health, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't mention that get_snapshot is for images or list_alerts for events, leaving usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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