check_user_live

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: returns stream information if live and null if offline, which is beyond what the schema reveals. It doesn't mention rate limits or error handling, but for a simple status check the core behavior is well covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

The description explains the return behavior (stream information or null), which is necessary because no output schema exists. The single parameter is well-defined. It is complete for a simple status check, though it leaves the exact contents of 'stream information' unspecified.

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% (the 'login' parameter is described as 'Nombre de usuario de Twitch (login name)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Verifica') and clearly identifies the resource (un usuario de Twitch) and the condition being checked (si está transmitiendo en vivo). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_twitch_user (profile) or get_top_streams (global list) by focusing on a single user's live status.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool: to check if a specific Twitch user is currently live, returning null if offline. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of the highest tier.

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