live_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: this is a read-only reachability probe that additionally returns remediation guidance on failure. It does not spell out what a successful result contains, but for a zero-parameter probe the disclosed behavior is close to complete.

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 short sentences, with the core question front-loaded and the secondary output behavior trailing. 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?

With no output schema, the description does need to hint at returns, and it does by noting the fix instructions on failure. The only gap is that it does not describe what a successful response reports, which is a minor omission for a simple connectivity check.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 states a specific check — whether a running Studio One instance is reachable via the MCP Bridge device — which is a distinct resource/verb combination an agent can tell apart from the sibling live_* action tools. It is phrased as a question rather than an imperative, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'Explains how to fix it if not' clause suggests it is a diagnostic to run when the bridge may be down, but the description never explicitly says when to call it or which siblings it should precede. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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