get_camera

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the host format is explained, but the description doesn't explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, permission requirements, or error handling. It provides some context but not deep behavioral detail.

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 extremely concise: a single summary line plus two parameter-focused bullet lines. Every sentence adds value, and the most important identifier (camera_id) is front-loaded in the summary. 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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description covers the two required parameters with source and format details. It does not mention authentication, read-only affirmations, or error scenarios, but for a simple single-resource retrieval tool, the provided information is largely sufficient. A small gap remains around explicit non-mutating behavior.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: host is defined as 'console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)' and camera_id is marked REQUIRED with a clear source ('Obtain it from list_cameras (its id field)'). This is exactly the guidance an agent needs.

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 action ('Get details') and the specific resource ('a single Protect camera by ID'). It naturally distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_cameras and get_camera_snapshot, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 gives concrete instructions on how to correctly provide both parameters: the host format and the need to obtain camera_id from list_cameras. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, but the 'by ID' scope implies the selection criteria versus listing all cameras.

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