cricketaustralia_streams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains that the streams array is empty when the match isn't live and mentions the response structure including 'responseError'. However, it omits details about authentication, rate limits, or error handling.

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 concise with two sentences, starting with the main purpose. It is front-loaded and to the point, though the return format could be integrated more smoothly.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior but fails to explain parameters or error conditions. The context signals indicate schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not.

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 input schema has two parameters (jsconfig and fixtureId) with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description does not explain either parameter. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema itself.

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 tool returns live video stream entries for a fixture, specifically noting that it is populated only during live matches and returns an empty array otherwise. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cricketaustralia_scorecard or cricketaustralia_fixtures.

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 when to use the tool (when the match is live) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for non-live scenarios. No comparison to sibling tools is given.

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