get_application_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return fields (major, minor, bugfix version) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free. Since it's a getter, the read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists the return values without any wasted words or redundant detail. Every sentence serves a clear informational purpose.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool—zero parameters and a clear output schema (though not shown explicitly)—the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without needing additional details.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description need not provide additional parameter semantics. The description adds value by explaining the return structure, which is beyond the parameter schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies 'Ableton Live application version info' as the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_application_cpu_usage and get_livemcp_info by precisely stating it returns version information. The listed return values reinforce the purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool—whenever version info is needed—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. It lacks the explicit comparisons seen in high-performing tools, but the purpose is self-evident enough for basic inference.

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