live_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'read' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. No information about error handling, rate limits, or system impact.

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 short sentence is concise, but for a tool with 9 parameters, it is likely too terse and lacks structure. Could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is severely inadequate. No return value info, no error conditions, no examples, and no guidance on how parameters interact.

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 description coverage is only 11% (only 'timeout' described). The description adds no meaning beyond parameter names; 'read selected properties/children' hints at two parameters but leaves the other seven (e.g., child_limit, detail, max_items) unexplained.

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?

Description states 'read selected properties/children,' which gives a clear verb and resource. However, the phrase 'Resolve object' is vague and could be more specific. It distinguishes from siblings like live_call or live_eval but not clearly from live_children.

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 such as live_children or live_observe. No mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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