streamlabs_get_performance_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a read-only 'Get' operation and lists the specific data points returned, giving the agent a solid expectation of what it will receive without side effects.

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 front-loads the action and resource, then lists the included metrics. Every word adds value, with zero redundancy or filler.

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—no parameters, no output schema, and no complex behavior—the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool returns. There is no missing context or ambiguity.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by stating it retrieves current stats without any configuration details.

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' followed by the resource 'current performance stats' and enumerates the exact metrics (CPU usage, FPS, dropped frames, bandwidth, disk space). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with scenes, sources, or streaming controls.

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?

While no explicit alternatives are mentioned, the description makes it obvious when to use this tool—whenever current performance statistics are needed. The context is clear enough, though it doesn't state exclusions or when not to use it (e.g., for historical data).

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