session_link_status

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states 'Read-only', indicating no side effects, and describes the return shape including a condition for when the Live runtime does not expose Link 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?

Two sentences: the first defines purpose, the second adds behavioral detail and return shape. No extraneous information; very concise.

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 simple read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and return shape. It could be more explicit about the fields returned, but the mention of 'nullable status fields' and 'reason' is sufficient.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description does not describe any parameters because there are none. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4.

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 specifies a clear verb ('discovery') and resource ('Ableton Link and external sync status'), and the tool name distinguishes it from siblings that deal with tracks, clips, devices, etc.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('before sync-sensitive playback or collaboration workflows'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but none are obvious among siblings.

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