list_streams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'List' reasonably implies a read-only operation, and the nesting note adds useful behavioral context, but pagination behavior, response shape, and permission requirements are not disclosed.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the tool's purpose and adding one relevant behavioral note. There is no 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?

For a tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and hierarchy but omits usage guidance, pagination behavior, and return-value expectations. This leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds slight extra meaning by explaining streams as hierarchical folders, which supports parent_id semantics, but it does not substantially go beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('your streams'), and defines streams as collections/folders for organizing thoughts. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_stream (single stream) and search_streams (search behavior).

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 implies the tool lists the user's own streams and notes hierarchical nesting, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare against search_streams or get_stream, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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