Describe a stream without judging it

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the tool reports facts only, with no judgment, and enumerates the categories of information it returns. It does not mention side effects or permission requirements, but for a read-style describe operation the described behavior is sufficiently clear.

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?

Two sentences contain no filler. The first sentence front-loads the specific fact categories, and the second sentence provides a crisp usage guideline with a clear contrast to judgment-oriented tools. Every part 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?

For a read-only description tool with a fully documented input schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, its output scope, and its intended usage context. There is no output schema, but the enumerated fact categories together with the sibling tool context give an agent enough to select and invoke the tool 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 parameters (url and headers) are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning, but it does clarify the overall purpose that connects the parameters to stream inspection. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('describe') and resource ('stream'), and enumerates exactly what kind of facts are returned: protocol, live/VOD status, rendition ladder, codecs, tracks, protection, and ad markers. It also explicitly contrasts with judging or diagnosing, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like diagnose_stream.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use when you want to know what a stream is rather than what is wrong with it.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool and implies the alternative of diagnose_stream for problem-focused analysis. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use inspect_drm or check_segments, but the context is clear enough.

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