live_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' weakly implies a non-mutating read, and listing the returned fields (volume, pan, mute, solo, record-arm) adds useful context about scope and freshness. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error conditions, or whether values reflect unsaved in-memory state.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned fields appended for precision. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey what comes back — and it does by naming the five channel-state properties. It stops short of documenting refresh/liveness semantics or behavior when Studio One is not running, which is a modest gap for a zero-parameter query.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No param guidance is needed or missing.

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?

Specifies the verb (List), the resource (mixer channels of the song open in Studio One right now), and enumerates the state fields returned (volume, pan, mute, solo, record-arm). This distinguishes it from siblings like live_tracks or live_track_state, which operate on tracks rather than mixer channel strips.

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 phrase 'open in Studio One right now' implies the precondition (a live session with a song loaded) and that this returns ephemeral live state rather than saved data. However, it never states when to prefer this over live_tracks/live_track_state or what happens if no song is open, leaving selection to inference.

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