live_list_tracks

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It clearly states it lists tracks (a read operation) and specifies output fields. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., performance impact) are disclosed, but the simplicity of a read-only list reduces need.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous 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?

Given zero parameters, a simple listing task, and an existing output schema (as per context), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. No prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned, but they are not critical for a straightforward list.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. No parameter explanation is needed, so baseline 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 specifies a clear verb ('list'), resource ('tracks in running Live set'), and the output fields ('kind, name, mute/solo/arm state'). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like `als_list_tracks` which likely operates on offline projects.

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 usage (when needing current track state from a live set) but provides no explicit when-not or alternative tools. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but lacks guidance.

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