Stream health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It lists the health indicators examined, which gives some transparency, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or whether any permissions are required. The term 'Check' implies non-mutation, but this is not made explicit.

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 front-loads the action and resource while adding specific, relevant details. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, given the large set of sibling tools, a brief note on how this differs from get_stream_status or diagnose_stream would improve completeness. As is, it is adequate for a 0-param health-check tool.

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 baseline is 4. There is nothing to add beyond the empty schema, and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource ('stream health') and immediately lists concrete metrics (dropped frames, congestion, reconnects). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stream_status (which reports status) and diagnose_stream (which is a broader diagnostic), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 usage for monitoring stream health but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_stream_status or diagnose_stream. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the wording alone.

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