list_lsl_streams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool scans the local network and requires the lsl extra, but it does not mention that it waits up to wait_s, what happens when no streams are found, or what the returned data looks like.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the key subject and constraint are front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is near-minimal. It names the resource, but omits wait_s semantics, output shape, and any disambiguation from sibling stream-related tools, so an agent is left to guess those details.

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?

There is one optional parameter (wait_s) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain it. It provides no information about wait_s; the agent can only infer meaning from the property name and default. This is a clear gap.

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 action ('list') and resource ('Lab Streaming Layer streams') with a clear scope ('visible on the local network'). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as list_sources or get_stream_status, so some disambiguation is left to the name.

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 'needs the lsl extra' gives a prerequisite signal, and the overall purpose implies use when the agent wants to discover active LSL streams. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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