answer_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 the tool collects the full streaming response before returning, but does not mention any destructive or authorization requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 sentence that conveys core functionality concisely. However, it could be structured with separate statements for purpose and behavior for easier parsing.

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 low complexity (2 required params, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and streaming behavior. However, it lacks details on the expected output format and any dependencies (e.g., evidence must be retrieved beforehand).

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%, and parameter descriptions are clear. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the effect of different answer_type values, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specifies 'generate scenario summary' based on questions and evidence, and mentions streaming response, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'answer' and 'evidence_summary'. However, '场景总结' (scenario summary) is somewhat vague and could be clarified further.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'answer' or 'evidence_summary'. The description implies you need a question and retrieved evidence but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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