get_stream_urls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the breadth of output formats generated (a behavioral fact not present in the schema), but omits permission/auth requirements, behavior for an unknown stream_name, URL lifetime/expiry, and whether generation is idempotent or read-only.

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 the verb first and no filler. The protocol enumeration is dense but each item is informative, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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, so return values need no explanation, and this is a one-parameter read tool. Still, with zero annotations the description should cover auth needs and the failure mode for a nonexistent stream; those gaps leave an agent to guess before invoking.

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% and the description only implies the parameter via 'for a stream', so it never clarifies whether stream_name is the display name from list_streams or an internal identifier. The single obvious parameter keeps the ambiguity low, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ('Generate') plus resource ('URLs for a stream') and an enumeration of the supported protocols (WebRTC, MSE, HLS, MP4, MJPEG, JPEG, RTSP) that makes the scope concrete. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_stream_snapshot or get_stream_info by virtue of returning playable URLs, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the contrast.

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 states what is produced but gives no guidance on when to call it versus get_stream_snapshot (single image), get_stream_info (metadata), or probe_stream. No prerequisites, no mention of whether the stream must already exist or be added via add_stream first.

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