Streams List Streams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds row-shape detail (quoted_name, quoted_qualified_name), which is mild value but largely redundant with the existing output schema, and it says nothing about permissions, result limits, or cross-database behavior for an openWorldHint tool.

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, front-loaded with purpose, with no filler. The second sentence spends space on return-field detail that the output schema already carries, which is the only 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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description is adequate for a simple list tool. However, it leaves the 'pattern' parameter unexplained and gives no hint about result volume or how to move from listing to describing, which an agent would need for correct sequencing.

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?

Coverage is 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the database/schema scoping that the schema already documents, and never explains the 'pattern' parameter, which is undocumented in both places. No additional semantics are contributed beyond what the schema provides.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('List table/view streams') plus scope ('in a database or schema'), which clearly separates it from streams_describe_stream and streams_read_stream_changes. It stops just short of naming a sibling or stating how it differs from streams_create_stream/drop_stream, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Optional scoping by database or schema is implied by the phrasing and by the all-optional parameters, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to streams_describe_stream for details or streams_read_stream_changes for consuming change data. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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