streambridge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. The verb 'Get' and the output content clearly indicate a read-only operation, and with zero parameters there is little risk of side effects. It does not mention potential costs or pagination, but these are minor for a simple catalog fetch.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and key return fields without any waste. It is concise and well-structured.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return contents (titles, episode counts, genres) and implies a list structure via the word 'catalog'. It could be more explicit about the exact output format, but for a simple getter it is sufficiently 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter details, and the empty schema needs no additional explanation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'StreamBridge content catalog' with a clear list of included fields (titles, episode counts, genres). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools focused on episode info, characters, or scenes.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving the overall catalog, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_episode_info or search_scenes. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get info' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and listing the return fields (title, duration, scene count) is helpful. However, it does not mention what happens when an invalid episode number is given or whether any authentication is required, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and output. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It identifies the specific resource and the fields returned, which is sufficient for basic use. It does not explicitly clarify episode numbering or edge cases, but these are likely not critical for a simple getter. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'episode' with its description 'Episode number'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as range, format, or special values. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and there is no extra value added beyond the 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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'info for a specific episode', and specifically lists the fields 'title, duration, scene count'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_content_catalog (which likely returns a catalog) and search_scenes (which searches scenes). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 implies usage: you should call this tool when you need detailed info for a specific episode, as opposed to a catalog or characters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention the sibling tools. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it does not fully satisfy the 'explicit when/when-not' criterion.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so this description is the sole behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only listing action, but it does not describe output structure, ordering, or possible limitations. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action, resource, and output. It is free of filler words and extremely 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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, annotations, or output schema. The description clearly captures the purpose and output. However, it lacks any usage context or differentiation from siblings, so it is slightly less than fully 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the resource and the output fields, which is sufficient given the lack of parameters to document.

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 explicitly states the action ('List'), the resource ('main characters in Taiping Nian'), and the output ('their scene counts'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_content_catalog (catalog-level) and search_scenes (scene-level).

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 implies usage when character data is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or comparison with the sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results include direct watch links and second-level timestamps, and that search supports multiple fields. However, it lacks details on result ordering, pagination, behavior of boolean filters, or any access constraints, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It avoids waste and includes useful examples without bloat, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid overview but omits details on how filters combine, response format beyond links, and default behavior of optional parameters. It is adequate but not thorough enough for full situational 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?

Schema coverage is 57%, leaving limit, action_only, and romance_only without descriptions. The description partially compensates by explaining search dimensions (dialogue, character, emotion, scene type) and providing examples. It does not address filter semantics fully, so parameter meaning is not fully clarified beyond the 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 clearly states the tool searches scenes in StreamBridge video library with second-level timestamps. It lists multiple search dimensions (dialogue, character name, emotion, scene type) and outcomes (direct watch links), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_content_catalog or get_episode_info.

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 implies usage for finding specific scenes, giving clear context that this is a scene-level search rather than catalog or episode listing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternatives, though the purpose itself provides sufficient guidance for most cases.

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