live_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data points returned but omits details about side effects, permissions, or output format. The description is transparent about the read-only nature implicitly but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise at less than 10 words, front-loaded with the key concept 'Live transport state', and no wasted words. Every element is informative.

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 the simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main fields. It is missing minor context like the fact that it returns real-time state, but overall sufficient for a status check.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline is 4 for 0-parameter tools, and the description is clear about what is returned without needing to detail parameters.

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 it returns 'Live transport state' with specific fields: tempo, time signature, playing flag, song position, track count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'live_is_playing' and 'live_get_tempo' that focus on individual fields.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as individual status tools. It implies usage for aggregate state retrieval but lacks guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives.

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