remote_stream_enable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: monitoring for error patterns, interactive prompts, command completion, and the autoInterrupt Ctrl+C behavior. It lacks mention of potential side effects like performance impact, but covers the main operational traits.

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 concise, uses bullet points for clarity, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior. No fluff or redundancy.

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 (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the main functionality and behavior. It could mention return values or how to verify enabling, but that is not critical for an action tool. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It does add context by explaining the autoInterrupt behavior ('it will automatically send Ctrl+C when errors are detected'), which aligns with but does not significantly extend the schema 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?

The description clearly states 'Enable real-time streaming for a session with error detection', which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like remote_stream_disable and remote_stream_status by focusing on the enabling action with error monitoring.

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?

It explains the context and effects of enabling streaming ('When enabled, the system monitors output in real-time for...'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with specific alternatives. Still, the use case is implicit and clear.

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