openbci_stream

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that snapshot requires active stream and that stop leaves the session connected. However, it does not mention error conditions, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., data loss when restarting). This is adequate but incomplete for full transparency.

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 with a heading and bulleted list of operations. Each operation is described in one line. The structure is clear and front-loaded, but the 'marker' description uses an internal jargon ('P300/speller') that may require external knowledge.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description adequately covers operations but lacks return value details for start/stop/marker (e.g., confirmation or error messages). Snapshot mentions 'latest EEG samples per channel' but no format. This is sufficient for basic use but could be more complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking 'marker' parameter to 'marker operation' and mentioning 'buffer_size' and 'max_samples' relate to start and snapshot respectively. However, it does not significantly enrich the schema definitions, such as clarifying default values or constraints beyond what's in the schema.

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 defines the tool's purpose: 'Control EEG data streaming from a connected OpenBCI board.' It lists four distinct operations (start, stop, snapshot, marker) with specific behaviors, distinguishing it from siblings like openbci_board (board management) and openbci_export (data export).

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 context for when to use each operation (e.g., 'marker' is for 'P300/speller experiments', 'snapshot' requires active stream, 'stop' keeps session connected). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare directly to sibling tools, but the structure implies clear usage scenarios.

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