wave_get_stream_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. It communicates that this is a read-only GET operation returning a current snapshot, which is transparent for a simple health-check tool. It does not mention potential errors, permissions, or latency characteristics, but those are less critical for a read-only status endpoint.

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 entire description is one compact, front-loaded sentence. It states the action, the resource, the endpoint, and the key response fields without any filler or repetition, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns by listing connection state, viewer count, and quality indicators. It could add explicit notes about read-only behavior or error cases, but the endpoint, parameter, and response contents are sufficiently clear for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100%, and the stream_id property is already documented as 'The UUID of the stream to check.' The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 identifies a GET operation on a stream status resource and lists the returned contents (connection state, viewer count, quality indicators). It does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools like wave_get_stream_metrics or wave_get_viewers, but the 'status document' framing plus endpoint path makes the purpose distinct enough.

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 phrase 'Get the current status document' implies this tool is for checking a stream's live health, which is a clear context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over wave_get_stream_metrics, wave_get_viewers, or wave_list_streams, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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