get_processor_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention what 'recent outputs' entails (e.g., is it buffered?, does reading clear the buffer?, what happens when no outputs exist?), nor does it note that a streaming processor's outputs are transient. The description 'recent outputs' implies non-persistence but this isn't explicit.

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 sentence that's efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. The brevity is appropriate given good schema coverage, with zero wasted words. Slight deduction because it could have used the space for sibling differentiation or behavioral context.

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?

Despite an output schema and full parameter coverage, the tool is a 'reading' operation on a streaming processor — a domain where buffer semantics, whether data is consumed, and ordering guarantees matter. The description doesn't clarify these. For a tool with roughly 30 sibling tools and no annotations, more context is needed for correct selection and use.

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 documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is adequate (limit default of 20 with direction 'newest last' is documented). Baseline 3 is appropriate given full coverage with no extra description value.

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 'Read a streaming processor's recent outputs' identifies a specific verb (read) and resource (streaming processor outputs). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like stream_status, get_channels, or read_window — multiple sibling tools relate to reading data from streams/processors. The purpose is clear in isolation but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 given on when to use this vs alternatives like stream_status, run_processor, or read_window. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the processor must be running, session must be attached). The description provides no context for choosing this tool over its many siblings in the stream/processor family.

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