describe_live_stream_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it queries status without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical operational details unspecified.

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 brief but structured with Args and Returns sections, which is helpful. However, it includes redundant parameter listings that add little beyond the schema, and the core description '查询流状态' is overly terse, lacking necessary context. It's efficient but under-specified.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '流状态' (stream status) returns, such as data format or possible values, nor does it cover error handling or dependencies. For a query tool with three parameters, this leaves too much ambiguity for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value by listing parameters in an Args section, but doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema already covers, such as interdependencies or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states '查询流状态' (query stream status), which provides a basic verb+resource but is vague about what 'stream status' entails. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'describe_live_stream_online_list' or 'describe_live_stream_event_list', leaving the specific scope unclear. The purpose is identifiable but lacks precision.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as how it differs from other 'describe' tools for streams. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for informed selection.

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