Stream Page

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden: it does disclose that the values are a live snapshot ("right now") and that tracks reflect what "just played", which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about whether a page/stream must already be running, whether the call has side effects, or what happens when nothing is active.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its payload, followed by the routing instruction to stream_visual. The nested parentheticals add clarification without redundancy; nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return format, yet it usefully summarizes the shape and points to the streaming sibling. The one gap is that the name 'stream_page' suggests it starts a stream, and the description has to spend its second sentence correcting that expectation rather than stating prerequisites.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline applies. The only parameter-ish detail, mode='page', belongs to the sibling stream_visual and is clearly attributed to it rather than to this 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?

The description enumerates exactly what this tool returns: the page address, the drawn scene, the current level, the 16 bands, the beat, and recently played tracks. It is not verb-led ("The visual page: its address..."), so an agent must infer it is a read/state tool, but the resource and its contents are unambiguous and it distinguishes itself from stream_visual by scope.

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 explicitly names the alternative and the condition: use stream_visual(mode='page') if you want the page opened in a window and captured. It also notes the address can be opened in any browser on this machine, giving two concrete consumption paths. It stops short of stating when-not to call it (e.g. no page configured) or any prerequisites.

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