reverse_start_live_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns a live_session_id that must be preserved, and that it avoids undocumented JSON export. However, it does not explain side effects like what happens when reset_session is true or how start_recording_if_stopped behaves beyond defaults. The description gives minimal behavioral context, leaving important behaviors untold.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the crucial note about preserving live_session_id is placed second. Every sentence earns its place; it is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the essential action and the critical output (live_session_id). It mentions the relationship to follow-up reverse live tools, which helps an agent understand the workflow. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., whether a recording must exist), potential error conditions, and how the parameters affect the session. The output schema exists, so return format is presumably defined, but the description alone is not fully complete for an agent to confidently call this tool without further research.

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 only 33% (only snapshot_format has a description). The tool description adds no explanation for reset_session or start_recording_if_stopped. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify their behavior or how they interact with the session. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 action: 'Start a near-real-time live analysis session.' It also provides a differentiator by mentioning 'without using undocumented JSON export,' which hints at an alternative approach. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like start_live_capture, so there is some ambiguity about when to choose this over that. Still, the verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishable.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you want live analysis and want to avoid undocumented JSON export) and instructs to preserve the live_session_id for follow-up tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit. The mention of follow-up reverse live tools provides context but not exclusions.

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