looks_get_current

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify what 'details' include, whether it requires specific permissions, or how it handles cases where no look is live. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with live audience content.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable.

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 retrieves 'details' of a live audience look with no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't specify what details are returned, the format of the response, or how to interpret the output. Given the complexity of audience look data and the lack of annotations, more context about the return value would be helpful.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('currently live audience look'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'looks_get' or 'looks_get_all', which might retrieve multiple looks rather than just the current live one.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'looks_get' or 'looks_get_all'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context requirements, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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