Server has 11 tools with basic naming (verb_noun pattern) and descriptions present. However, parameter descriptions are minimal or absent for most tools. Input schemas are visible but lack detail: most parameters have only type and description fields, with no enums, ranges, or constraints. Output schemas are not documented. Error handling is minimal, no recovery guidance or actionable error messages. The server implements a sophisticated receipt/audit system (hash-chained, ed25519-signed) which is a security strength, but this does not compensate for weak tool definitions. Descriptions average ~50 chars (below the 194-char baseline for A+ tools). No tool has comprehensive parameter documentation matching production standards.

• Document output schema for each tool. Example: 'list_cameras returns {cameras: [{id: string, name: string, protocol: string, ptz: boolean}], total: number}'.
• Expand parameter descriptions to 50 - 150 chars with format hints. E.g., 'camera: Camera ID (string, e.g., 'axis-01'). Call list_cameras() to see available IDs.'
• Add enum constraints to string parameters. If cameras.json is loaded at startup, extract valid camera IDs and include them in the schema as an enum.
• Implement actionable error messages. When a camera is not found, return: 'Camera "unknown-cam" not found. Available cameras: [list]. Did you mean one of these?'
• Add min/max constraints to numeric parameters. E.g., pan/tilt/zoom: -1 to 1 (float); limit: 1 to 1000 (integer).