reachy_webrtc_stream_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The wording 'check if ... currently running' clearly conveys a read-only, non-mutating status query and promises the stream URL as the result. It does not spell out read-only semantics explicitly, but the verb and 'currently' make side effects unlikely.

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 sentence, no filler, with the action and the returned value both front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity, zero-parameter status tool the description covers purpose and the result it returns. There is no output schema or annotation to lean on, so a slightly more explicit return format (e.g. what is returned when the stream is not running) would make it fully complete, but the current description is nearly sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about argument semantics. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 states a specific action ('check if WebRTC stream is currently running') and an output ('get the stream URL'), with a clear resource ('WebRTC stream'). This distinguishes it from siblings like reachy_start_webrtc_stream and reachy_stop_webrtc_stream, which are action-oriented rather than status-oriented.

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 usage context is implied by the name and the 'currently running' phrasing: use it to inspect stream state rather than start or stop the stream. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over reachy_status or mention alternative tools, so the guidance is left to inference.

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