stream_vertex_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the non-destructive streaming behavior, SSE protocol, and deprecation. However, it does not mention authentication or rate limits, but these are typical and not critical for a streaming tool.

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?

The description is well-structured with two concise paragraphs: the first delivers the critical deprecation warning and alternative, the second explains usage and purposes. No extraneous text.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should clarify the SSE event format. It mentions 'live build events' but does not specify the structure of events. The alternative tool reference helps, but the response format is left vague, reducing completeness for a streaming 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?

Schema coverage is 100%; both parameters are fully described in the schema (flow_id and vertex_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool streams real-time build events for a specific vertex, providing live updates via SSE. It explicitly differentiates from 'get_build_status' and other siblings by focusing on streaming during the build process.

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?

The description explicitly states the tool is deprecated and provides the exact alternative ('get_build_status' with event_delivery='streaming'). It also explains when to use this tool: for monitoring long-running component builds, debugging, and providing live status.

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