describe_play_addr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the return values (PushAuthKeyInfo, RTMPAddr, 请求ID), it doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. The description provides output information but lacks important behavioral context for a tool with no annotations.

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 efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. While the Chinese/English mix could be cleaner, the information is well-organized and front-loaded. The Args/Returns formatting helps with readability despite the language inconsistency.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return value information. However, it lacks important context about when to use this versus sibling tools, behavioral characteristics, and deeper parameter relationships. The return value descriptions are helpful but incomplete without an output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description lists parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. It correctly identifies optional parameters but doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples that go beyond schema documentation.

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 the purpose as '获取播放地址' (get playback address), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'describe_rtmp_addr' or explain what makes this specific playback address retrieval different from other describe/retrieval tools in the list.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this specific playback address retrieval is appropriate compared to other describe tools or the sibling 'describe_rtmp_addr' tool. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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