live_list_commands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: the scale (~1,000 commands), optional substring filtering, with_state semantics, and the important caveat that many commands require a selection or open editor. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or read-only safety explicitly, but the read-like nature is evident. These additions are valuable beyond the bare schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the behavioral details. Every clause earns its place by adding information about scope, filtering, state, and constraints. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and important runtime caveats. It stops short of explaining the return format (e.g., command names vs. objects) or how to handle potentially large results, but the essential context is present. An agent can call it correctly with what is provided.

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 must explain both parameters, which it does: filter is a substring filter, and with_state adds whether each command is currently enabled. It does not specify case sensitivity or exactly which field filter targets, but the semantics are clear enough for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list Studio One commands available to live_command, with an approximate count and optional filtering. It clearly distinguishes this discovery tool from the sibling live_command, which executes commands. An agent can immediately understand the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'available to live_command' provides clear context that this tool is for discovering commands before invoking live_command. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the implied workflow is strong enough. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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