get_stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (metadata + formatted content), the effect of content_format parameter, and importantly explains that the three max_ parameters cap output to fit LLM context, with actionable advice. It does not discuss error handling or performance, but for a read tool this is acceptable.

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 very concise: two short paragraphs. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and return format. The second paragraph efficiently explains the parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, output structure, parameter roles and default values, and even usage guidance for context windows. The output schema exists, so return value details are handled elsewhere.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It describes stream_id as required, enumerates content_format options (including 'transcript' default), and explains the three max_ parameters' purpose (capping output for LLM context) with guidance to adjust. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Get one stream by id with its packets pre-formatted', specifying the verb (get), resource (stream), and unique output format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_streams (which lists metadata) and get_packets (likely raw packets).

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 implies usage: retrieving a single stream's metadata and formatted content. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_packets or list_streams, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. The guidance on widening/narrowing max parameters is helpful but not about tool selection.

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