live_eval

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

No annotations are present, so description must carry the burden. It mentions the evaluation context and timeout, but does not disclose error behavior, side effects, or safety. Adequate but missing key behavioral details.

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?

Two sentences covering purpose, alternative, and preference. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

Despite concise purpose, the description omits essential context: return format, how ref works, error handling, and which bindings are available. With no output schema and many parameters, the agent cannot fully understand usage.

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 only 14% (only timeout has a description). The tool description adds no explanation of expr, ref, detail, max_items, etc. With 7 parameters and a nested object, the lack of semantic detail hinders 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 clearly states it evaluates Python expressions with specific bindings (song, app, obj, Live). It distinguishes from sibling 'live_exec' by noting that live_exec is for statements, making the purpose specific and non-overlapping.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use live_exec for statements, and prefer installed assets over generated unless asked. This helps the agent choose between tools, though it does not cover all possible contexts or exclusions.

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