stream_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently discloses that omitting the argument lists all available documentation and that supplying a name returns focused detail. 'Documentation' also implies a non-mutating read operation, though the description does not explicitly state safety or output format.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the tool's purpose first. It uses two dense sentences with no filler, and the parenthetical gotcha examples are relevant rather than decorative.

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 one-optional-parameter documentation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and usage modes. It does not describe the exact output format or behavior for invalid names, but those are not essential for correct invocation.

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 already documents the single name parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the argument is optional and by explaining what happens in each case: list everything vs. get detail for one entry or playbook.

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 identifies the tool as providing detailed documentation for stream entries and playbooks, including meaning, interpretation, and gotchas. It clearly implies a help/reference tool, but it lacks an explicit verb phrase and does not name sibling tools to differentiate itself.

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 gives explicit guidance: use it 'before working with an unfamiliar topic' and explains the two invocation modes: no arguments lists everything, while naming an entry or playbook returns detail. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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