list_streams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'cheap orientation' to signal low cost/latency and 'summarise' to imply a read-only aggregation, but it does not describe return format, limits beyond the parameter, or any operational side effects. Some useful context, but not extensive.

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?

Two clear sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second gives the usage rationale and names an alternative. It is front-loaded, has zero filler, and every phrase earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and the parameter adequately. Minor gaps remain: the exact shape of the summary output and what 'level mix' contains are not spelled out, but the tool's low complexity makes this a minor omission.

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 the only parameter (window) is fully documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any new meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already states, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Summarise') and resource ('log streams (topics)'), and clarifies the scope ('active and their level mix'). It also differentiates from tail_logs by positioning itself as a cheap orientation step, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'call this before tail_logs so you know what topics exist and where the errors are'. This names the relevant alternative and the condition that selects this tool, leaving little to inference.

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