list_streams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns stream names, IDs, descriptions, and subscriber counts. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'visible' entails regarding permissions. It is moderately transparent.

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 two short paragraphs plus structured Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. No unnecessary words; every part serves a 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?

Given the simplicity (3 boolean params, no nesting, output schema exists), the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return format adequately. It is complete for a list tool, though could mention that an output schema provides more detail.

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 0%, but the description compensates by listing each parameter with its default value in the Args section. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, though it could explain the semantics more deeply (e.g., what 'include_public' means exactly).

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 'List all visible Zulip streams (channels).' and adds 'Use this to discover what streams/channels exist in the organization.' This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_stream_id or list_subscriptions.

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 says 'Use this to discover what streams/channels exist.' It gives context for use but does not specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like list_subscriptions (which lists subscriptions, not streams). No explicit exclusions.

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