SRG SSR Video – Live-TV-Sender

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful behavioral caveat: RTR and SWI have fewer or no live channels, so an empty or short result is expected, and it surfaces the dependency on srgssr_epg_get_programs.

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?

The main statement is one concise sentence, followed by compact, well-structured tags for use case, caveat, and example. There is no filler or repetition; every element earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, an important business-unit caveat, and an example. Nothing needed to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema fully documents business_unit with an enum and a description, so the example (business_unit='srf') is helpful but adds little new semantic meaning. Since the schema carries the parameter burden, this is a solid baseline rather than an exceptional contribution.

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 the specific operation ('Listet alle Live-TV-Sender...') and the scope ('einer SRG SSR Unternehmenseinheit'), making it clear what resource is returned. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like srgssr_audio_get_livestreams and srgssr_video_get_shows.

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 use_case explicitly frames this as the live-stream selection step and prerequisite for srgssr_epg_get_programs, which needs a channel_id. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance against the audio or on-demand siblings, but the main usage context is clear.

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