srgssr_video_get_livestreams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context (prerequisite for EPG, channel availability caveats) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or authentication needs. With annotations covering safety, the description contributes moderate value.

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 description is concise (one line main statement plus three structured tags) with no fluff. The most critical information (purpose, use_case, important_notes, example) is front-loaded and clearly separated using XML-like tags. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, output schema available, annotations thorough), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, caveats, and a concrete example. The use_case and important_notes provide actionable guidance beyond the schema and annotations, making it complete for an agent.

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 provides a description for the only parameter business_unit ('SRG SSR Unternehmenseinheit: 'srf', 'rts', 'rsi', 'rtr' oder 'swi''), so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not add new semantics beyond the schema. According to rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the verb 'listet' (lists) and the resource 'alle Live-TV-Sender einer SRG SSR Unternehmenseinheit' (all live TV channels of a business unit). It distinguishes from sibling tools like srgssr_audio_get_livestreams (audio) and other video tools (episodes, shows) by specifying video livestreams. The use_case tag reinforces that this tool is a prerequisite for EPG, adding context.

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 includes explicit use_case guidance: 'Live-Stream-Auswahl, Voraussetzung für srgssr_epg_get_programs' indicates when to use the tool. Important_notes warns that RTR and SWI have few or no live channels, helping the agent avoid unnecessary calls. The sibling tool list shows audio livestreams are separate, providing comparison.

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