discover_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that discovery likely involves network probing, whether it is slow or blocking, auth/credential requirements per provider, or any side effects. 'Discover' hints at a scan but nothing is stated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumerations are compact. It is appropriately sized, though the fragmented phrasing leaves little room for the context an unannotated tool needs.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should explain what discovery returns and how the provider affects behavior. It leaves the agent without enough to anticipate the call's cost or result.

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 0% and the schema has no enum, so the description's parenthetical listing the valid providers (`hass`, `onvif`, `dvrip`, `homekit`) supplies real value that the schema lacks. It still omits the default ('hass') and any explanation of what a provider represents.

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 verb ('Discover') plus resource ('stream sources') and the go2rtc integration context, which distinguishes it from list_streams and get_stream_info. It is clear enough to identify the operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling stream tools.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative sibling (e.g. list_streams for already-configured streams) is named. The agent must infer that this is for finding new sources rather than enumerating existing ones.

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