cricketaustralia_streams

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds useful behavioral context: streams are empty when the match isn't live, the return object shape, and that no auth is needed. This goes beyond the annotations and helps manage expectations without contradictions.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return format and auth. Every sentence earns its place with 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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: return shape, empty-array behavior, fixture context, and auth requirement. It does not detail the structure of stream URLs/metadata, but the schema and openWorldHint provide enough for an agent to proceed.

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%, with both parameters (fixtureId and jsconfig) having descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 the tool provides live video stream entries for a fixture, which is a specific resource. It clearly distinguishes this from other cricket tools like scorecards or fixtures by focusing on streams, though it lacks a strong verb like 'retrieve' or 'list'.

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 clearly indicates that streams are populated only during live matches, implying the tool is for live match usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-live scenarios or provide when-not-to-use guidance, which is a gap given the large sibling tool set.

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