gcfr_current_stream_status

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

With no annotations, the description itself carries the burden of behavioral context. It usefully communicates that only currently running streams are shown, that this is the right first check for stuck batches, and that filtering by stream_key is possible. It does not discuss side effects, but 'Show' plus the status-oriented name makes the read-only nature reasonably clear.

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?

Three short sentences, all informative: the primary purpose, the recommended usage context, and the optional filter. There is no filler, and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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 status tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it shows, when to use it, and how to narrow results. The only minor gap is not explicitly contrasting it with gcfr_stream_status, but the 'RIGHT NOW' language already makes that contrast implicit.

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 schema has one optional stream_key parameter with no description and 0% coverage. The description compensates by stating it is an optional filter for a specific stream, which is exactly the meaning an agent needs. It could add where to find stream_key, but for a single simple parameter this is sufficient.

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 ('Show') and a precisely scoped resource ('streams that are actively running RIGHT NOW'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gcfr_stream_status or gcfr_current_process_status. The temporal emphasis leaves no ambiguity about what is being queried.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use this tool first when investigating a running or stuck batch, providing a clear entry point among many diagnostic siblings. It does not mention explicit alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'Use this first' framing is strong practical guidance.

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