list_streams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context about the two stream categories and their relationship to campaigns and subscribers, helping the agent interpret results without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds domain context that earns its place.

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?

For a no-parameter list operation with readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool. It explains what a stream is and names the categories, and no output schema is required.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no missing parameter information. The description adds no param-specific details because none are needed; baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('message streams of the server') with a clear scope. Distinguishes stream types (transactional vs broadcast) and relates broadcast streams to campaigns/subscribers, differentiating from sibling tools like get_stream or list_campaigns.

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 establishes the general use case (enumerate all streams) and provides meaningful domain context about which streams carry campaigns and subscribers. However, it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives such as get_stream for a single stream or create_stream for creating, so when-not guidance is left to inference.

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