live_observe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates mutation (add/remove) but does not specify side effects, permission requirements, error conditions, or whether multiple listeners are allowed. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the implications of invoking the tool.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action. However, it wastes potential by being too vague; it could include more details without losing conciseness. It is not overly long, but it sacrifices informativeness.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and the presence of a nested object parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, success/failure indicators, or how the listener interacts with the Live API. An agent would miss critical context for correct 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters. It does not clarify that 'enabled' likely toggles between adding and removing, nor does it explain the structure of 'ref' (path and id). With no schema descriptions, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 action (add or remove a listener) on a specific resource (an object's property). It distinguishes from siblings like live_get or live_set by mentioning 'listener', which is a unique concept among the tools. However, it could be more precise about what 'listener' means in this context.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as live_get or live_events. There is no mention of prerequisites, like ensuring the object exists, or whether the listener should be added before or after certain operations.

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