get_livekit_token

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as token scope, expiry, authentication requirements, or what enabling debug events changes.

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 only three words and functions as a bare fragment rather than a structured statement. While it is not verbose, it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters and does not front-load enough actionable context.

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 tool that issues a LiveKit/WebRTC token and takes six parameters, the description omits nearly all contextual detail. The schema covers parameter meanings and annotations cover safety, but the description still does not explain the token's purpose, audience, or usage context.

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%, so the schema itself already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 "Get Webrtc Token" essentially restates the tool name and title with a synonym, providing no additional specificity about what the token is for or which resource it grants access to. It does not distinguish this token from siblings such as get_single_use_token.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the required agent_id or optional branch/version/environment context. The agent receives no routing information at all.

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