get_live

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the stream key is redacted by default, which tells the agent exactly what it will and won't receive. It stops short of richer detail like auth or rate-limit behavior.

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 zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the redaction caveat follows immediately where it is most useful.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description only needs to add behavioral quirks — which it does via the stream-key redaction note. It is nearly complete, missing only mention of any auth or access requirements implied by openWorldHint.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (live_id and include_stream_key) are already documented, with include_stream_key explicitly flagged as a streaming credential. The description restates the redaction/default behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (a livestream), and scopes the return to 'state and RTMP connection details'. The get/update/create distinction from siblings like update_live and create_live is implicit in the verb, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 by the tool's nature (fetching a livestream's current state). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to alternatives such as list_live or update_live, so the agent must infer the context.

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