list_oval_streams

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

No annotations are supplied, and the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that this lists streams, optionally filtered; it does not disclose security requirements, read-only nature, pagination, return format, or whether it accesses stream metadata. Minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 concise 20-word sentence that front-loads the primary action and filters. No redundancy or descriptive fluff.

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?

Adequate for a simple listing tool with 2 well-described params. It lacks a cross-reference to the sibling grabbing tool 'for fetching single streams', and it does not mention what information is returned for each stream (possibly no such announcement is ok because no output schema is defined. Completeness is constrained by the absence of alternative-use and output info.

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 100% (both 'after' and 'label' have descriptions). The description adds semantic context by explaining 'after' as a filter for modification date in ISO 8601 format and 'label' as a product version label (e.g., jbossalem-eap-8, rhel-9). This is a moderate baseline because the schema already provides complete param info.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'available Red Hat OVAL v2 streams' with two explicit filter options (product label, modification date). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_oval_stream' for retrieving a specific stream, but 'List' vs 'get' plus the optional filters conveys an adequate listing vs. retrieval distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs. alternative tools. It does not mention that 'get_oval_stream' should be used to fetch a single stream's details, nor does it state any prerequisites. The optional filters are described but no context is provided for typical usage.

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