stream_status

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 does a decent job explaining the semantics of key fields (throughput_ratio, group_delay_sec, last_error) and what they signal. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (which seems obvious given 'report'), error/edge cases, or what happens when a session doesn't exist.

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 compact but dense. The initial one-line summary is clear, and the follow-up bullets provide actionable interpretation guidance. The formatting with code literals and newlines is clean and scannable. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't enumerate every return field. The description wisely highlights the fields that 'matter for closed-loop work,' which is exactly the kind of prioritization an agent needs. For a single-parameter read-only report tool, this is reasonably complete, though it could mention idempotence or frequent-polling suitability.

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 100% and session_id is well-described ('The session to report on'). The description adds context about what the output means, which helps the agent interpret results. With only one simple parameter at full schema coverage, the baseline is 3-4, and the description's field explanations add genuine 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 states this is a 'Health and timing report for a session,' which clearly indicates the tool reports on stream/session health. It distinguishes meaningfully by focusing on production health metrics (throughput, group delay). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like stim_status or recording_status which are also status tools, though the title 'stream_status' plus 'session' framing differentiates it adequately.

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 explains which fields matter for closed-loop work, giving the agent context on how to interpret key output. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. related status tools (stim_status, recording_status), nor does it address timing considerations like whether this should be polled regularly or only when a stream is active.

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