list_streams

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the fact that stream descriptions are included in the output, which is a minor behavioral detail. It does not disclose edge cases or additional behaviors, but with strong annotations this is adequate.

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?

The description is a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose and output content efficiently.

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 simple list operation with a strong annotation set and an output schema present, the description covers the necessary basics. It does not explicitly explain the output structure, but the output schema compensates. The only minor gap is not mentioning the instance_key parameter, but the schema covers that.

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% for the single optional parameter (instance_key), so the schema already fully documents its meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context, matching the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('TimeBase streams'), and notes the inclusion of stream descriptions. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_timebase_instances (instances) and list_stream_spaces (spaces), which target different resources.

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 does not explicitly state when to use the tool versus alternatives, but the tool name and sibling context make its primary use case obvious. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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