stream_playground_run_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it is not truly streaming ('collects-then-returns'), blocks up to a capped timeout, and the return format. This exceeds minimal requirements.

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 a single well-structured paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, scope, blocking behavior, return format.

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 includes the return structure ('verdicts' and 'ended_reason'), explains the blocking collect-then-return approach, and notes constraints (capped timeout). It is complete for invocation.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds context for `timeout_seconds` (capped at 300, default 120) but provides no additional meaning for `run_id` or `competition_id` beyond their names. Partial compensation, hence score 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?

The description clearly states it 'Collect Server-Sent Events for a solver-participation Playground run', with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing blocking behavior and scope (playground.read), which is unique among listed tools.

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 provides explicit context: 'Only available for solver-participation competitions' and explains blocking and timeout behavior. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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