Stage Stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the default engine selection (newest running, via server.py), mono-unless-stereo, the jitter-buffer meaning of 'lead', the broad destructive scope of 'stop without an id stops every stream', move semantics, an error catalogue, and emitted events (stream_play, stream_end, stream_underrun). It stops short of saying whether volume changes persist or how state survives across calls.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action, but it reads as one dense run-on paragraph mixing purpose, action enum, id resolution, defaults, error codes, reply shapes, and emitted events with no separation. Every clause is arguably informative, but the lack of structure makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

It covers return payloads and events thoroughly (redundant with the output schema but harmless), yet for a 12-parameter, no-annotation, multi-action mutation tool the required 'scene' parameter and positional parameters (at placement, ref/lift/rolloff) remain opaque. An agent could not confidently construct a call from the description alone.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: it explains action, name (with master|bus:<name>|deck:<name> syntax), stream_id/at precedence, port, stereo, lead, and volume. The required parameter 'scene' is never mentioned at all, and ref, lift, and rolloff are left entirely undefined, which is a meaningful gap on a 12-parameter tool.

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?

It states a concrete verb and resource: stream an 'ismail live bus' from the PC into the room through an HRTF panner on a stage object, and names the page command ('stream'). It is specific about what is being done, but it never differentiates itself from the many sibling stream_* tools (stream_start, stream_stop, stream_status, live_stream) that appear to overlap, and 'ismail live bus' is undefined jargon.

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?

Usage is only implied through the action list (play | stop | volume | move | status) and some resolution rules ('known by stream_id, else at, else name'). There is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over stream_start/stream_stop/stream_status, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the fact that an engine must be running.

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