Stream Chat with Lyzr Agent

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly behavior. The description adds that the call streams progress and returns the full response, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects such as conversation persistence or external calls, which the openWorldHint hints at.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundancy; the key facts are 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?

The tool is simple and the schema fully documents parameters. The description covers purpose, streaming behavior, and return. It lacks an explicit return format or edge-case guidance, but given no output schema, it provides enough for an agent to understand the tool.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the 100% 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 identifies a specific verb ('Send'), an object ('a Lyzr agent'), and a distinguishing channel ('streaming endpoint'). It also notes the behavior of streaming progress and returning the full response, which differentiates it from the sibling 'lyzr_chat'.

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 clearly implies the streaming use case as opposed to non-streaming alternatives, but does not explicitly contrast with 'lyzr_chat' or 'lyzr_start_task'. The context is understandable, yet exclusions and alternatives aren't explicitly stated.

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