Live editor state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the live-state fields it reports, especially unsaved changes and break mode, which are not evident from annotations alone. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loads the essential state contents, the second gives clear usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 a low-parameter count, complete schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies what remains necessary: when to use the tool and what state dimensions it covers. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to invoke it is missing.

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 sole parameter pid is fully documented in the schema with its default and behavior ('0 uses the only one, or refuses'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 defines the resource as the running Visual Basic Editor's live state and enumerates the exact contents: current module/project, break mode, unsaved edits, caret procedure, and analyzer status. This level of specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like xlide_live_sessions, xlide_project_info, or xlide_read_module, which target different resources or scopes.

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 gives explicit use cases: when the user asks what they are looking at, or before suggesting an edit where unsaved changes may be relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough that an agent can route to it correctly.

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