get_stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of indicating behavior. It discloses that the result includes thoughts and child streams, which is useful. However, it does not mention that thoughts are paginated (via thoughts_page and thoughts_per_page), which is a notable behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded sentence communicates the tool's core purpose and scope without excess words. It is concise and readable.

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 description provides a high-level summary, but without an output schema and with pagination parameters present, it does not clarify that 'thoughts' are returned as a page (default page 1, 20 per page) rather than all thoughts at once. This leaves some ambiguity about the response shape.

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?

All four parameters are documented in the input schema with 100% description coverage, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no param-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('a stream by ID'), and the included content ('thoughts and child streams'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_streams and list_streams by specifying ID-based retrieval.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies this tool is for retrieving a specific stream when the ID is known, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_streams or list_streams, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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