max4.live

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the id-format/provenance context and nothing about failure modes (e.g. unknown id) or return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the id-format qualifier second; no filler. It is dense but earns its clauses.

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, closed-world read tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke correctly (what it returns, which id forms are valid, where ids come from). Minor gap: no statement about behavior on an invalid or missing id.

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 schema's own id description already states 'number (catalogue) or m4l_… (author-submitted)', so the description largely repeats it. It adds slight detail by citing maxforlive.com vs. max4.live authorship, but no new 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full details for one device') with a singular scope that separates it from the sibling search_devices and list_filters. It also disambiguates the two id forms, though it never names the siblings explicitly.

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?

Points the agent to the source of the id ('from search_devices'), which implies the correct call sequence, but gives no explicit when-not guidance or conditions for choosing it over search_devices.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds which filters are enumerated but says nothing about the return format or whether the value set is static, which is minor for a zero-parameter lookup.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, naming the filters and the target tool up front. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could ideally sketch the shape of the returned values (e.g., a map of filter name to allowed values). Otherwise it is complete for a trivial no-arg enumerator whose annotations fully cover its behavior.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and the exact resource (valid values for the type, license, and sort filters), and names the sibling tool whose filters it describes. An agent can distinguish it from get_device and search_devices, though it does not explicitly say it exists to serve search_devices calls.

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 reference to search_devices implies the natural workflow (discover valid filter values before filtering), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no alternative is named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), so the description's job is to add semantics — which it does: catalogue index cutoff date (2026-08-07), the two sources, and that matching is fuzzy full-text over title/author/description and identical to max4.live's own search. It doesn't discuss pagination or result-shape behavior, but for a read-only search that is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loads the corpus and scope in the first clause, then matching semantics, then the concrete query-composition example. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the name or title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description would ideally hint at what a result contains; it does not. Otherwise it is complete for an 8-param, all-optional search tool, and the annotations plus rich schema carry the rest.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description exceeds it by demonstrating multi-parameter composition and how a natural-language request maps onto type/license/sort/added_after together. It still leaves per-parameter defaults (limit 20, sort fallback logic) entirely to the 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (9,000+ Max for Live devices), and pins down the two corpora it spans (maxforlive.com mirror plus max4.live author submissions with m4l_ ids). An agent can immediately separate this from get_device (single-device lookup) and list_filters (facet enumeration) without opening a schema.

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 worked example ('popular free MIDI devices from the last 2 weeks' -> type=[...], license=[free], sort=downloads, added_after=<date>) shows exactly how to translate an intent into filters, and the source field's meaning is spelled out inline. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly or stating when this tool is the wrong choice (e.g. when you already have an id).

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