get_streams

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose useful output behavior: streams are live and results include viewer counts and URLs. However, it does not mention empty-result behavior, authentication requirements, or whether the returned URLs are direct stream links, which leaves meaningful gaps.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the most important output details in a parenthetical, keeping the definition compact and scannable.

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 read tool, the description is minimally viable: it names the resource, the input, and key output fields. But it omits how to determine valid sport values, what happens when no streams are live, and the exact response shape—gaps that are more significant because there is no output schema or annotations.

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 schema has a single required 'sport' parameter with no description, and the tool description only says 'for a sport,' which merely restates the property name. It does not specify accepted formats, examples, or point to list_sports for valid values, so the description fails to compensate for the 0% 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 clearly states the verb and resource: it gets live Twitch/Kick streams for a sport, and it specifies that results include viewer counts and URLs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_live_games or get_live_events, which return game/event data rather than streams.

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 intended use is implied by 'Live Twitch/Kick streams for a sport,' so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to alternatives such as list_sports for valid sport values or get_live_games for non-stream live data.

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