get_hls_by_stream_by_file

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

The description adds nothing beyond the annotations. While annotations correctly indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description does not disclose any additional traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or potential errors. It is a bare endpoint listing with no behavioral context.

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 under-specified rather than concise. It contains a single sentence, the endpoint, and two trivial parameter labels. While there is no fluff, it lacks necessary structure and context. The format is minimal but not efficiently structured for agent comprehension.

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 (two path parameters, read-only, idempotent), a complete description should at least indicate the purpose, what the HLS stream represents, and typical usage. The description fails to mention any of this. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of high-level context.

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 description labels both parameters as 'Path parameter', which is not evident from the schema alone, but this is trivial. It does not explain what 'stream' and 'file' refer to (e.g., IDs, names, or formats). With 0% schema coverage, the description should provide substantial semantic meaning, but it only repeats the parameter names and types without elaborating their role.

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 is essentially a tautology: 'Get hls' merely restates the tool name. It does not specify what 'hls' is, what resource it operates on, or how it differs from the many other get_* siblings. The endpoint line 'GET /hls/{stream}/{file}' is marginally informative but still fails to clarify the purpose beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any alternative. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no way to know if this is the right tool for a given HLS retrieval scenario compared to other get_* tools.

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