live_is_playing

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

The description implies a read-only query but does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior or lack of side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description should clarify that it returns a boolean without modifying state. It also lacks context on what 'transport' refers to (e.g., main session transport vs. specific clip).

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word adds value.

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 simple query tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. However, it could briefly mention the return type (boolean) or that it reflects the current playback state of the main transport.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and description adds no parameter information. According to the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose as checking whether Live's transport is currently playing, using a specific verb ('is playing') and resource ('Live's transport'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like live_play and live_stop.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention using this to check state before playback-dependent actions, nor does it contrast with live_status for broader status queries.

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