monitor_live_stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and explains key behaviors: extracts audio, chunks into 15-second segments, continuous background transcription, and VAD behavior control. It could mention potential resource usage or authorization, but the provided details are substantial.

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 approximately 100 words, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, parameter advice, and return value. Every sentence is informative without redundancy, achieving high conciseness.

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 2 parameters, clear purpose, sibling tools suggesting a workflow, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the initiation process, key parameter behavior, and return value (stream_id). It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 50% (disable_vad has description, url does not). The description adds value by clarifying url as a live webcast link and elaborating on disable_vad beyond the schema, noting its use for low-quality audio where VAD drops muddy speech. This offsets the schema gap.

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 'Start monitoring' and the resource 'live financial webcast' with specific purpose 'for transcription and stress analysis'. It also provides examples of acceptable URLs, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle different stages like analysis or retrieval.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool (provide a URL to a live webcast) and a specific scenario (low-quality audio) for setting disable_vad. It implies use for initiation, contrasting with siblings for subsequent operations, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool mentions.

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