get_stream_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the possible return states and notes that returned text is sent to the AI model, but it does not clarify what 'returned text' refers to, nor does it explain auth flow or rate limits.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core question of whether a stream is live and readable. The model-exposure note is relevant, though the phrasing 'Returned text is sent to the AI model' is slightly ambiguous.

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?

This is a simple read-only status tool with a fully described single parameter and no output schema. The description lists possible state values but does not describe the full return shape, such as language or readability fields, so it is adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

There is one optional streamName parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, including its default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 states a specific purpose: checking whether a stream is live, what languages it uses, and whether it can be read, including the possible status values. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_live_captions, get_saved_transcript, or get_stream_context, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 for checking stream availability/readability before other operations, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or sibling-tool routing guidance are provided.

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