twitch_get_stream

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, giving the agent the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context—nothing about authentication needs (client_id/client_secret), rate limits, or what happens if the stream is offline. With annotations carrying the burden, the lack of added context merits a 2.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It immediately conveys the essential information, so it scores a 5.

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 read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is almost complete. However, with three params at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the missing explanation of client credentials and error/offline behavior leaves a gap. A 3 reflects adequacy but not completeness.

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 0% for three parameters. The description only clarifies that 'user_login' is the lookup key, adding meaning to the required parameter, but it leaves client_id and client_secret completely undocumented. It therefore only partially compensates for the coverage gap, deserving a 2.

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 verb (Get), resource (stream), and scope (by user login), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling twitch_search_streams by emphasizing a specific lookup, though it does not name the alternative. A 4 is appropriate because the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 'by user login' implies this tool is for when you already know the streamer's login, versus a search tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it over siblings like twitch_search_streams, nor any preconditions or exclusions. Score 3 for implied but not explicit guidance.

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