Stream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that slugs are 'auto-discovered from the sitemap' and hints at the tool's read-only nature by using 'Fetch', but it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. The description adds some context but is incomplete for behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by concise guidance on usage and examples. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics well. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., error cases), but the output schema reduces this gap.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'slug' refers to a Stream documentation page identifier, provides examples (e.g., 'getting-started'), and mentions how to obtain slugs (via list_stream_docs or prior knowledge). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Fetch the content') and resource ('Stream documentation page by slug'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_stream_docs (which lists available docs) and other unrelated tools (e.g., payment or customer management tools). It directly addresses what the tool does without redundancy.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool vs. alternatives: use list_stream_docs first to discover slugs, or use this tool directly if you already know the slug. It also gives examples of slugs (e.g., 'getting-started'), clarifying the context and excluding other use cases like fetching non-documentation resources.

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