Diagnose an HLS or DASH stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the core mechanism (fetch manifest, report issues in priority order) and explains the deep mode's purpose ('required to catch segment timing and live window problems'). While it doesn't discuss failure modes or rate limits, the read-only nature is clear from 'fetch and report.'

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, zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, the usage trigger follows immediately, and the deep parameter explanation earns its place. Nothing is redundant.

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 4-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers the main use case, when to start, and deep mode's rationale. It could be more complete with explicit sibling comparisons or output format hints, but 'report what is wrong with it' sufficiently signals the return concept.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value for the deep parameter by explaining why it matters ('required to catch segment timing and live window problems'), which is not in the schema. Other parameters are adequately covered by schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a manifest and report what is wrong with it, worst first.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like describe_stream (descriptive) and check_segments (segment-focused). The phrase 'Start here when a stream misbehaves and you do not yet know why' anchors it as the first-line diagnostic tool.

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 a clear trigger: 'Start here when a stream misbehaves and you do not yet know why,' which implies using more targeted tools once the cause is known. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'start here' framing provides enough routing context for an agent.

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