get_stream_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' simply restates the get operation implied by the tool name and does not disclose response shape, error behavior, permissions, or what 'details' specifically include.

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 one short sentence with no wasted words and the core operation is front-loaded. It is concise, though slightly too skeletal to fully communicate the tool's scope.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description does not clarify what 'details' means or what the response will contain. It also does not help an agent distinguish this from list_stream_videos, so the overall context is incomplete for a tool that relies entirely on its description.

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 100%, and both parameters already have basic descriptions ('The video ID', 'The account ID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('a Stream video'), so an agent can tell this is a retrieval operation for a single Stream video. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like list_stream_videos, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description does not mention when a caller should have a video_id, nor does it distinguish this from list_stream_videos or other video-related retrieval tools.

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