Diagnose stream

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Diagnose' but does not explain whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or produces a summary report. The output schema exists but the description still lacks transparency about side effects or operational impact.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and target. It contains no redundant words and effectively communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema and no parameters, the description is insufficient to distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like get_stream_health, which also relates to streaming status. It lacks guidance on expected output format or how to interpret results, making it contextually incomplete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Per the baseline for no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since the schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is nothing to clarify.

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 action ('Diagnose') and the resource ('streaming problems'), with specific focus areas (drops, congestion, encoder). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like diagnose_obs, diagnose_recording, and diagnose_audio, which target different aspects of the OBS ecosystem.

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 a clear use case: diagnosing streaming issues such as drops, congestion, or encoder problems. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the focus is sufficiently clear from the description alone.

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