stream_response

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions WebSocket and real-time delivery but omits critical details: error handling, prerequisites (client connection), rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand operational consequences.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences front-load the primary purpose and mechanism. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 simplicity of parameters and lack of output schema/annotations, the description is incomplete. Missing: prerequisites (client connection), error scenarios, behavior when no clients are connected, and any additional constraints. A more thorough description is needed for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with two parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify the nature of 'content' or the purpose of 'in_reply_to'. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: real-time push of processing results to connected debugging clients via WebSocket. It distinguishes from polling by stating '无需轮询', but does not explicitly name sibling tools like 'poll_session'.

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?

Implied usage scenario: real-time streaming is preferable to polling. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are mentioned despite the presence of 'poll_session' in sibling tools.

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