Report streamed geometry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the differences between summary/nodes/resources and adds an important caveat that uids are decimal strings because they exceed JSON number limits. It implicitly indicates a read-only report operation, though it could be more explicit about being non-mutating.

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 three succinct sentences, front-loaded with the overall purpose, then expanding into parameter-specific details. Every sentence adds value, including the uids type caveat, with no unnecessary filler.

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 output schema exists, return format details are not necessary. The description covers the main behavioral variants and a key data-type pitfall, making it sufficient for tool selection and invocation. It could mention potential size or pagination, but that is not essential for this tool's core use.

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 description adds meaning to the 'what' parameter beyond the bare enum, explaining what each value returns (counts, tracked nodes, pointer URLs/uids never sent). connectionId is already described in the schema, so the description compensates for the 50% schema coverage gap without duplicating known information.

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 what the tool does: it reports geometry the server has streamed to a connection, with specific sub-modes (summary, nodes, resources). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like teleport_connection_status and teleport_overview by focusing on streamed geometry contents.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to inspect streamed geometry) and explains the available 'what' options, which guides selection among sub-uses. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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