inspect_live_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond them by saying it lists attributes *and simple values* and that 'contains' filters names, which tells the agent what the output actually looks like (shallow, non-recursive).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by argument examples then the use case. No padding, though the trailing sentence about containment ('contains filters names.') is slightly clipped and could be folded into the path sentence for smoother reading.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return format need not be explained. For a two-param introspection tool the description covers purpose, path syntax, filter behavior and motivation; only the parameter defaults and depth behavior are left implicit.

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 0%, so the description carries the param burden and largely does: 'path' is explained as a dotted path with three sample values, and 'contains' is described as a name filter. It does not mention defaults ('song', empty string) or whether matching is case-sensitive, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read-only look at Live's Python API') plus the exact return shape: attributes and simple values of the object at a dotted path. Concrete path examples ('song.tracks[0].mixer_device') make it unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like get_device_params or get_track_tree.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case: 'Use it to check whether Live exposes something before writing a new command.' That is a clear when-to-use condition. It does not name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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