live_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses scope (capped at the buffer, ~120 s) and the produced contents (shots, text, speech, sound, Live signals), but omits whether a live session must be running, whether the snapshot is registered in list_watches, and what happens if `seconds` exceeds the buffer.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and the downstream capability stated second; little waste, though the parenthetical buffer note adds a mildly confusing default value.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating what the resulting watch contains and how it can be used downstream. The remaining gap is the lack of preconditions and the buffer/default ambiguity, which matter for a session-dependent tool.

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 0%, so the single `seconds` parameter depends entirely on the description. It explains that it selects the last N seconds capped by the buffer, but the claim '120 s by default' conflicts confusingly with the schema default of 30 and leaves the actual truncation behavior ambiguous.

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: turns the last `seconds` of the live session into a normal watch. That clearly separates it from siblings like live_watch_for and live_now, though those alternatives are never named 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?

The description gives clear context for use: convert buffered live footage so that 'All watch tools (zoom, frame, diff, search) then work on it', which names the follow-up tools. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., an active live session) or when to prefer live_now or live_watch_for instead.

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