probe_stream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Actively probe' usefully signals live network activity (and implicitly latency or side effects on the source) rather than a cached read, but it says nothing about authentication needs, timeouts, or rate limits for what is presumably a network-touching operation.

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 verb and target come first and the inspected artifacts follow. The artifact list mildly overlaps with the output schema but is short enough not to waste space.

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 not be explained, and the description adequately covers the action. The gaps are the missing routing guidance against get_stream_info and any parameter or auth context for a network-probing operation.

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?

There is exactly one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The name 'stream_name' is fairly self-explanatory, but the definition adds no meaning about its format, accepted identifiers, or how it maps to list_streams output.

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 ('probe') and resource ('camera stream'), plus the artifacts it inspects (codecs, SDP, track stats), so the agent knows what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling get_stream_info, which is the one ambiguity an agent could stumble on.

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 word 'Actively' implies an on-demand live inspection as opposed to passively reading cached metadata, which hints at when to prefer it over get_stream_info. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative.

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