get_stream_details

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation with 'Returns' and lists the returned fields. However, it does not disclose that the data may be cached or that AWS is not re-read on each call; that detail is only mentioned in the maxAgeSeconds parameter description. This is a notable transparency gap for a tool that returns an overview.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the returned resources and fields; the second gives contextual usage and points to an alternative. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover purpose, usage, and return content, which it does. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit behavioral notes on data freshness in the main description, but the parameter description compensates. For a read-only overview tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 a single optional parameter with a rich description covering freshness tolerance, advisory behavior, and usage guidance. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the tool description itself does not add parameter-level semantics but the schema carries the weight.

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 the verb 'Returns' with specific resources ('Kinesis data streams' and 'Amazon MSK clusters') and enumerates the returned attributes, making it unmistakably clear what the tool does. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by naming 'get_topic_details' explicitly.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when writing Kinesis producer or consumer code, checking whether a stream is PROVISIONED or ON_DEMAND before writing PutRecord calls, or reviewing streaming architecture.' It also names the alternative tool for Kafka topic-level mappings.

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