get_stream_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description earns credit for what they cannot say: the data is public (no special auth) and the returned text flows into the calling model, which is a meaningful disclosure about content handling. It still says nothing about size limits or what happens when a stream has no glossary.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is returned, when to call, sensitivity, and content-handling caveat. Front-loaded with the payload description and no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned content (design fields plus glossary names, terms, acronyms), which is what an agent needs to decide whether a second call is worthwhile. Minor gap: no mention of result shape or empty-glossary behavior.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the fallback to CONFCAP_STREAM already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about streamName beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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?

Names the resource and its two payloads precisely: stream design (colour, logo) and the glossary of names/terms/acronyms. That is enough to separate it from get_live_captions or get_stream_status, though the description never uses an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.

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?

'Call it before quoting or summarising captions and use the terms to correct mis-heard names' gives a concrete trigger and even a downstream use for the result. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to call it, so it falls short of a 5.

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