victorialogs.list_streams

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the output values are stream IDs consumed by search_stream, and a limited subset may have zeroed hit counts.

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 short and front-loaded, moving from purpose to output/usage to caveat. Every sentence adds relevant information without repetition or 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?

The description covers purpose, output identity, and a hit-count caveat, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, it omits any explanation of the six input parameters, leaving a clear completeness gap.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about the six input parameters (limit, query, start, end, rangeSec, filter). With low coverage, the description needed to compensate but does not, leaving parameter meaning entirely undocumented.

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 ('Discover') and resource ('stream IDs and hits') and clarifies the returned values are _stream_id strings usable by search_stream. This distinguishes it from the sibling search_stream tool without requiring the agent to open either schema.

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 clearly implies the discovery-then-search workflow by saying the values are usable by search_stream. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of other alternatives such as field_names or search_logs, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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