List LIVE streams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds only a redundant '[READ]' tag and the raw API endpoint, offering no additional behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, or response characteristics. With annotations covering the safety profile, more value beyond structured data would be expected.

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?

A single terse sentence with no waste, but it is a technical reference rather than a front-loaded natural-language purpose statement. It is adequate but could be more immediately helpful.

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 zero-parameter list tool with annotations covering read-only and open-world behavior, the description plus endpoint reference is minimally sufficient. However, it omits any mention of what the response contains (e.g., a list of live stream objects), which would be useful since there is no 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4 per the rules. The description does not need to explain any parameter semantics, and the schema is empty.

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 (GET) and resource (streams), making it clear this is a read-list operation for live streams. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the resource name is distinct enough from tools like list_vod_videos or list_live_watermarks.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_live_stream or other list endpoints. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues to help an agent choose.

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