get_rtsps_stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get existing' indicates a read-only retrieval and avoids implying creation, but it does not disclose return format, failure behavior, permissions, or what happens when no RTSPS stream exists. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded. The purpose is stated first, followed by two concise parameter clarifications. There is no filler or redundant text.

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 simple two-parameter getter with an output schema, the description provides the essential parameter semantics and provenance. It lacks explicit routing to sibling tools, but the tool name and surrounding context make the intended use reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well by explaining that host can be a console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format), and that camera_id is required and obtainable from list_cameras. This adds real meaning beyond the bare string schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get existing RTSPS stream URLs for a Protect camera.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_rtsps_stream and delete_rtsps_stream, and the word 'existing' reinforces the read-only scope.

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?

While the description gives useful parameter sourcing guidance ('Obtain it from list_cameras'), it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create_rtsps_stream or delete_rtsps_stream, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond obtaining camera_id.

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