get_streamers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning any traits such as read-only nature, data freshness, pagination, error behavior, or authentication requirements. This is minimal and lacks transparency beyond the core function.

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 a single, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently and is front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is zero waste.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose but does not describe the return format or any special cases. For a simple getter, this is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about the response structure.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, this scores 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is required.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current Chess.com streamer list'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools that focus on players, games, clubs, and tournaments. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does without ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. However, the purpose is self-evident given the tool name and description, so usage is implied. No guidance on exclusions or specific scenarios is provided.

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