create_stream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the creation action without disclosing side effects (e.g., requires unique ports), permissions needed, or whether it modifies existing streams. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words, but too brief. Could incorporate more detail (e.g., parameter clarifications) without compromising conciseness. Adequate but not optimal.

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?

Without annotations, output schema, or parameter explanations, the description is insufficient. A create tool for streams should mention uniqueness constraints, relationship between TCP/UDP flags, and potential conflicts. Missing critical context for agent decision-making.

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 50% (only required params described). The description adds no further meaning to uncovered parameters like tcp_forwarding, udp_forwarding, or certificate_id. It does not explain their roles or defaults beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('create') and the resource ('TCP/UDP stream proxy'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_proxy_host (HTTP/HTTPS) or create_redirection_host (HTTP). The inclusion of protocol types adds specificity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings exist for different proxy types (e.g., create_proxy_host, create_redirection_host), but the description does not contrast them or provide prerequisites.

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