get_stream_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a POST endpoint and that it aggregates stream-level facts across the library's files, implying a read-only statistical operation. It does not reveal whether results are computed live, cached, or what the aggregation granularity is, but for a simple stats tool this is acceptable.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, followed by the endpoint and a compact list of what the statistics contain. Every element earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description sufficiently explains the tool's scope and return content. It could be more explicit about whether the output is counts, arrays, or a structured breakdown, but the provided information is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in most contexts.

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%: library_id is fully described with its optionality and default of all libraries. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond mentioning 'the library's files,' so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get stream-level statistics'), cites the endpoint, and enumerates the exact data categories returned: codecs, languages, and stream types. This clearly differentiates it from sibling stats tools like get_resource_stats or get_performance_stats by focusing on stream-level content.

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 by listing the data returned, so an agent can infer it is appropriate when stream composition details are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_resource_stats or get_performance_stats, nor does it describe exclusions.

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