Stream Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: keys are reported only as present, 'never their values', which tells the agent the response is redacted and safe to surface. It says nothing about whether this is strictly read-only, cost/latency of the probe, or what happens when the server is down.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the highest-value item (server) then walks venue, chat and output. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause names a distinct piece of returned state.

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 no-argument status tool with an output schema present, the description need not explain return structure, yet it helpfully previews the top-level sections anyway. The main gap is the absence of any read-only/cost note, which matters given there are no annotations.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description's parenthetical remarks describe output rather than inputs, which is harmless at 0 params.

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?

Enumerates exactly what is inspected: server, per-venue chat state / streaming flag / key presence, chat watchers, and output health (live, per site, bitrate, dropped frames). That enumeration distinguishes it from siblings like stream_start, stream_stop and stream_go. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'Report' or 'Return', reading as a noun fragment, so it is clear but not maximally crisp.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus stream_start, stream_stop, stream_go or live_status. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read-only diagnostic companion to the stream control tools.

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