inspect_owned_video_delivery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses passive, non-mutating observation and names the observed response stream, but omits permissions, side effects of flags like refresh_task_metadata, or rate/refresh 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?

Single front-loaded sentence with no repetition or filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves gaps handled under completeness rather than conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description should explain the three flags and the interaction model. It only provides the passive/non-mutating stance and leaves an agent without guidance on what the booleans change.

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% for three boolean parameters, and the description does not explain read_task_inventory, capture_media_events, or refresh_task_metadata. It adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 action (passively observe) and target (actual player report responses), and clarifies that it never sends or alters reports. It does not explicitly differentiate from video-related siblings such as monitor_owned_video or control_owned_video, so it is clear but not sibling-specific.

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?

Implies the tool is for passive inspection and excludes sending or altering reports, which provides a when-not boundary. However, it does not name alternatives or say when to use this rather than monitor_owned_video or control_owned_video.

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