evaluate_code_streaming

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: all 45 judges run sequentially, per-judge results stream as each completes, and running aggregates are provided. Missing details on error handling or auth, but the disclosed streaming behavior is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first defines the core functionality and output, the second reinforces the use case and sequential execution. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 no output schema and a moderately complex input, the description covers the streaming behavior well. It lacks explicit details about the expected response structure (beyond 'single structured response') or error scenarios, but the core functionality is clear and complete for the tool's purpose.

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 solid field descriptions. The tool description does not add new parameter-level insights beyond restating the streaming nature. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters sufficiently.

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 states the tool submits code for streaming evaluation, specifies it returns per-judge results with running aggregates, and contrasts with siblings like evaluate_code and evaluate_code_single_judge by emphasizing sequential execution and progressive feedback.

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?

Description explicitly recommends the tool for long evaluations requiring progressive feedback, which provides a clear use case. While it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools by name, the sibling list implies differentiation and the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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