live_sends

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read by describing returned fields, but never states read-only semantics, whether it requires a running Studio One instance (only hinted by 'the running Studio One'), what happens if no session is open, or whether the call has any side effects.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the returned fields are listed inline. The colon-and-list construction is slightly awkward and the scope qualifier could be front-loaded more cleanly, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by enumerating the returned fields (destination, level, mute) and the level range. It still leaves the channel identifier format, read-only nature, and failure behavior unspecified, which matters for a session-dependent tool.

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 0% and the single 'channel' parameter is an untyped string in the schema. The description adds real meaning by indicating that omitting channel yields sends for every channel while supplying one narrows to a single channel, but it does not explain the expected identifier format (name, index, or ID).

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 names the resource (sends on mixer channels) and the data exposed (destination, level, mute), and notes the single-channel variant. However, it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource, so it never explicitly says it reads/lists sends; an agent could momentarily confuse it with live_set_send or live_add_send, which are not mentioned.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative. The parenthetical '(or one channel)' implies you can scope to one channel, but nothing says when to prefer this over live_add_send/live_set_send or live_channels, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions.

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