describe_rtmp_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 tool retrieves RTMP addresses and auth key information, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when parameters are invalid. The description is minimal beyond basic functionality.

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 reasonably concise with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. However, the formatting with indentation is inconsistent, and the Returns section lists data types without explaining what they contain or their significance. The structure is functional but could be more polished.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that retrieves authentication-sensitive streaming addresses, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the security implications of the returned auth key, how the RTMP address should be used, or what format the response takes. For a tool dealing with streaming infrastructure and authentication, more context is needed.

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 with descriptions, examples, and defaults. The description's Args section merely repeats parameter names without adding meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline 3 for high 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as '获取推流地址' (get RTMP push address), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'describe_play_addr' (which likely retrieves playback addresses) by focusing on push/streaming addresses rather than playback. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, just implies a different address type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other describe_* tools, or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without explicit context.

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