stream_animation_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. Naming SSE is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about what events arrive, whether the stream ends when the task completes, what the timeout parameter does, or whether an error mid-stream is surfaced in-band.

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?

A single tight sentence with the mechanism front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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 long-lived streaming tool with no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain the event lifecycle and termination conditions. An agent cannot tell how to consume or when to stop reading the stream from this definition alone.

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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. task_id is inferable from the resource name, but timeout — likely seconds, with undefined behavior on expiry — is entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (stream) and resource (animation task) plus the transport mechanism (server-sent events), which clearly separates it from retrieve_animation_task and list_animation_tasks. It does not explicitly name those siblings as the non-streaming alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to stream versus when to poll with retrieve_animation_task, nor any prerequisite such as the task needing to exist or be in progress. The streaming-vs-retrieval choice is left entirely to inference.

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