get_nvr

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

The tool has no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses what fields are returned (hardware info, storage status, firmware version, system health), which is some useful behavior. However, it does not mention whether it requires authentication, whether the host must be a Protect-console host specifically, how it handles invalid hosts, or what the output schema's actual shape is beyond those categories.

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 concise and front-loaded: the main sentence states the resource and purpose, followed by the parameter clarification. It does not waste words, and the structure works well for an agent scanning it.

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?

There is an output schema present, so the return values do not need to be fully explained. Given a single required parameter and a rich output schema, the description covers the key missing piece - the host parameter's accepted formats - and enough about the response categories to orient an agent. It is slightly incomplete regarding error behavior and prerequisite host selection, but not severely.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare schema. It defines 'host' as 'console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)', which adds genuine semantic value over the schema's minimal 'type: string'. A 4 is warranted because it clears up the ambiguous parameter format, though it could have added more examples.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('NVR details from a Protect console'), and the core content (hardware info, storage, firmware, health). The sibling list contains related protect tools like get_camera, list_protect_events, and get_protect_application_info, but the description's focus on NVR details is distinct enough for an agent to differentiate it. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling, so it does not earn a 5.

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 obvious use: when you need NVR details for a Protect console. It says nothing about when to use an alternative or when this would not be appropriate. Sibling tools with similar 'get' patterns exist, so an explicit routing hint would have helped.

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