skypilot_stream_and_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, lowering the bar, and the description still adds substantial context: the blocking/waiting nature, the returned shape ('result' and 'logs'), the tail default, and the follow=False immediate-return behavior. It doesn't cover edge cases like what happens on timeout or failure, but for a read-only streaming tool this is strong disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then sibling differentiation, then return shape, then parameter semantics in descending priority. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Has an output schema, read-only/open-world annotations, and a description that covers blocking behavior, return fields, and parameter semantics. For a 4-parameter read-only tool, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it explains three of four parameters meaningfully: tail (limits trailing log lines, default all), follow=False (returns immediately with available logs), and log_path (stream from a specific log file instead of request_id). request_id's role is implied by the overall purpose but not explicitly defined, keeping this just short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Wait for a SkyPilot request to complete while capturing its log output') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling skypilot_get_request, which 'only returns the final result.' An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from its closest sibling without opening any 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?

Names the alternative (skypilot_get_request) with the distinguishing condition, and gives concrete when-to-use guidance ('useful for long-running operations like launch, exec, or managed job launch'). The follow=False escape hatch and log_path path are also framed as conditional usage, leaving nothing to inference.

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