bi_list_cameras

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content detail about what the list contains, but discloses no behavioral traits such as whether listing 'all cameras' triggers per-camera live queries, how groups are represented, or how the shaped view differs from the raw payload. No contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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 entire description is one dense sentence with no filler; the scope ('List of all cameras and groups') is front-loaded and every clause adds a specific field detail. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 output schema present, the description's field enumeration is the agent's only view of the return shape, and it is reasonably informative. However, it doesn't explain how groups appear in the list, how the limit interacts with groups, or what distinguishes the shaped view from the raw one beyond the parameter description.

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%, with both 'raw' and 'limit' already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), the resource ('all cameras and groups'), and enumerates the exact returned fields: online state, motion/trigger/alert counts, stream bitrate/FPS/resolution, last alert time, and error state. This clearly positions the tool as a status-overview listing rather than a config or snapshot tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling, and the 'groups' inclusion is stated but not defined, which keeps it from 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bi_get_status or bi_get_camera_config, and no exclusions or conditions are given. The intended use case must be inferred entirely from the field list, which is weak routing for an agent surveying 18 siblings.

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