get_stream_schema

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

With no annotations, the description reveals that many log streams expose 'message' rather than 'log' and recommends fields_limit adjustment, adding behavioral context beyond basic purpose.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy: purpose, usage reason, and parameter hint. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 3 params, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers main purpose and one parameter well. Missing explanation for include_raw, but overall sufficient.

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 0%, but the description explains fields_limit's purpose and implies stream_name's role. It does not explain include_raw, leaving a gap.

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 it gets schema information for a specific stream and provides context about log streams vs 'message' field, distinguishing it from siblings like search_logs.

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 advises using this first to confirm field names before SQL and suggests increasing fields_limit for large schemas, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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