rtp_streams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes input/output behavior but does not disclose potential side effects, error handling, idempotency, or prerequisites like permissions. The description mentions returned fields but omits operational constraints.

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, with two paragraphs and front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds value by detailing the two modes and the stream_spec format. It could be slightly more compact, but overall efficient.

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 lack of output schema, the description provides useful return field hints for both modes. However, it does not cover error conditions, default behavior for missing parameters, or the relationship between alias and stream_spec. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 explains the stream_spec parameter with format and example, but does not explain the required alias parameter or the optional display_filter parameter. This leaves significant semantic gaps for two out of three parameters.

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 it provides RTP stream inventory and per-stream quality analysis, with distinct behaviors based on the presence of stream_spec. It identifies the specific resource (RTP streams) and action (analysis/inventory), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like multicast_streams or protocol_stats.

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 explains two usage modes: without stream_spec returns all streams, with stream_spec returns per-stream statistics. It provides a format example for stream_spec. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as multicast_streams for multicast RTP, or voip_calls for call-level analysis.

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