Stream Start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses idempotency, that the server opens connections to every venue, and that no outbound sends occur before stream_go. It does not cover failure modes (port already bound, unreachable venues) or whether the server keeps running in the background, which leaves a meaningful gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the idempotency qualifier, then the sequencing constraint, with no filler. The telegraphic 'Then: venue_list ... chat_watch ...' fragments are efficient but slightly clipped, reducing readability marginally.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the essential semantics of a long-running server start: idempotency, sequencing, and next steps. Missing port semantics and lifecycle detail (does it persist across calls, how to shut down) are the only notable omissions.

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?

There is one parameter (port, default 8875) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains what changing it implies. With zero params this would be a 4; the single undocumented and non-obvious networking parameter pulls it down to 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Start the stream server') plus two distinguishing traits: idempotency and that it connects to every venue's chat without sending anything. It explicitly separates itself from stream_go, so an agent can tell it apart from the many stream_* siblings without reading schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit ordering constraint ('sends nothing to any site until stream_go') and names the correct follow-up tools with their conditions: venue_list to see what is ready, chat_watch to read chat. Alternatives are identified rather than left to inference.

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