Inspect stream protection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively states the tool is read-only, does not request licenses, and does not attempt decryption, which covers the most critical side-effect concerns. It does not disclose error behavior or rate limits, but for a simple inspection tool these are minor omissions.

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 with no filler: the first states the core capability, the second adds a crucial safety qualifier. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the schema covering parameter semantics, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what the tool reports, the input constraints, and the non-destructive behavior. It does not describe the return format, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap.

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 url and headers are already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, only referring to 'manifest' generically, which aligns with the url format already described. This matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Report the DRM systems, key identifiers and license URIs a manifest declares.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like describe_stream or diagnose_stream by focusing specifically on DRM metadata, and adds a safety qualifier that it only reads the manifest.

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 implies usage context by emphasizing 'Reads the manifest only: it never requests a license or attempts decryption,' which signals it is safe for inspection and suggests when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to choose this over diagnose_stream, describe_stream, or check_segments, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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