get_stream_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the status aspects it reports: buffered data, data arrival, and drops. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what happens for non-live sessions, or the format/units of the reported values.

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 tight clause with no filler. The 'For a live session' opener front-loads the most important context, and every word contributes to describing the tool's purpose.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the main return concepts but omits parameter explanation and usage guidance relative to similar sibling tools. It is minimally viable but leaves an agent to infer important details about session_id and alternatives.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and only provides 'Session Id' as the title for session_id. The description's mention of 'a live session' gives some context, but it never directly explains that session_id is the identifier of the live session to query, nor how to obtain it.

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 clearly specifies what is reported for a live session: buffered signal amount, whether data is still arriving, and drops. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_signal_quality, though it lacks an explicit action verb, relying on the tool name 'get'.

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 phrase 'For a live session' implies when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus alternatives such as get_signal_quality or get_session_info. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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