bi_get_camera_config

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses authentication-dependent behavior, what each call path returns, and which fields are intentionally absent from the API. This prevents the agent from expecting unsupported data and fully explains the tool's actual behavior.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the conditional behavior is explained compactly, and the limitation/alternative is placed at the end where it matters. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately communicates the returned fields, the auth-dependent behavior, and the boundary of what is not available. For a read-only config retrieval tool, this is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so both 'short' and 'raw' are already documented clearly. The description adds some context by mentioning the shaped vs raw distinction indirectly, but it does not need to compensate for schema gaps, so a baseline score of 3 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 clearly identifies the tool as returning per-camera configuration and state, enumerates the specific data fields (motion sensitivity, AI zones, recording mode, stream paths, schedule/profile flags), and explicitly names what it does not expose. This differentiates it from siblings like bi_get_reg and bi_get_camera_motion_config.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: admin credentials trigger one call path, non-admin falls back to another. It also names an alternative tool (bi_get_reg) for data this tool cannot return, which directly guides an agent's tool selection.

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