stream_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safe operation. The description adds behavioral context by listing the metrics shown (active connections, max allowed, event bus metrics) and the return format, which goes beyond the annotation's basic read-only signal.

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 efficient with three sentences: purpose, details, requirement, and return. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value, though the structure could be slightly more organized (e.g., separate sections).

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only), the description sufficiently covers its purpose and output. The output schema exists for return details. However, it does not address when to prefer this over sibling status tools, which is a minor gap.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema covers all input needs. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate given the trivial parameter count.

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 gets real-time memory stream connection status, specifying the exact resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cortex_status' or 'tool_health' by focusing on memory stream connections.

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 notes a prerequisite ('Requires Novyx Cloud') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cortex_status' or 'memory_stats'. However, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage contexts.

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