get_telemetry_stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only operation ('Retrieves') and lists data types, but does not mention authentication requirements, whether the stream is continuous, potential rate limits, or how the data is delivered (e.g., polling vs streaming). This is a moderate gap for a telemetry tool.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides concrete examples of the telemetry data. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema), but the description omits important contextual details such as the time window of live activity, whether data is returned as a snapshot or continuous stream, and any access constraints. Given no annotations and no output schema, a bit more detail would help the agent fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage; the description adds no explanation of the 'limit' or 'severity' parameters. While the schema defines them clearly (e.g., severity enum), the description could have noted that severity filters the telemetry levels, but it does not. This leaves the parameters underspecified relative to the tool's purpose.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' and identifies the resource as 'live runtime activity' with concrete examples (memory usage, exceptions, slow queries, leak traces). It also distinguishes itself from sibling scan tools by focusing on runtime telemetry rather than security or architecture scanning.

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 makes clear this is for retrieving live runtime activity, which immediately sets it apart from the sibling scan tools. While it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, the context is unambiguous given the sibling set are all scan-oriented tools.

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