Read Stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and mostly succeeds: it explains that output is summarized by default, lists summary statistics, describes dominant period and peak behavior, notes that raw returns a full single-stream payload that can be very large, and caps downsampled points via max_points. It does not explicitly state read-only safety or error behavior, but the behavioral detail is strong.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then efficiently details stream selection, default summarization, and raw behavior. It is dense but not bloated; each sentence adds useful operational context.

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?

The description is largely complete for understanding output summarization versus raw payloads, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, it omits session_id semantics and does not clarify how to target a specific running session beyond the phrase 'running session'.

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%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It documents stream as a sink block name defaulting to every stream, explains raw=True returns a single stream's full payload, and mentions max_points in the downsampling behavior. However, session_id is never described, leaving one of four parameters undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource: read the latest data from Studio sink blocks (scope, spectrum, scalar, waterfall, XY) of a running session. It distinguishes this data-reading operation from sibling tools like get_block_settings and list_sessions by focusing on sink output streams.

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?

Usage guidance is implied through parameter behavior: default is all streams summarized, raw=True returns a single stream's full payload. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_block_settings or session_status, nor does it state prerequisites beyond 'running session'.

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