stream_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful trait — that the streams are in-memory, i.e. ephemeral/session-scoped — but says nothing about ordering, filtering, or what happens when no streams exist.

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?

A single five-word sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 no parameters and full annotation coverage, most of the burden is lifted, but there is no output schema and the description does not hint at what a listed stream entry contains (e.g. an id needed for stream_poll/stream_stop). For a discovery tool feeding three sibling operations, that linkage is the main missing piece.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any argument, and it correctly signals that the listing is unfiltered (no scope arguments).

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 a specific resource ("in-memory polling streams"), which is clearly distinct from the imperative siblings stream_start/stream_poll/stream_stop. It stops short of naming those siblings or explicitly contrasting scope, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus stream_poll, stream_start, or the unrelated job_list; the agent must infer that this enumerates existing streams before polling or stopping one. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.

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