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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and explicitly discloses the key behavioral trait: it does not change Studio state. It could further explain error handling or return format, but for a simple status read it adequately conveys the side-effect-free nature.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb 'Read' and listing the exact state categories. 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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully enumerates the status areas and clarifies non-mutation, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema already provides complete coverage.

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 uses the verb 'Read' and specifies a clear resource scope: process, Socket.IO connection, scene, recording, and LIVE state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that mutate Studio state (switch, set, start, stop).

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 phrase 'without changing Studio' establishes a clear read-only context, implying it should be used for observation rather than modification. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free, nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or return format. The verb 'list' implies reads, but this is not explicitly stated.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and object. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the essential what and from-where. It states it lists scenes and the active scene, which describes the returned information. However, it could be slightly more explicit about return structure (e.g., whether scenes are named or identifiers), but it is adequate for a basic list tool.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it adds no irrelevant parameter information. The focus on output (scenes and active scene) is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'scenes' and 'active scene', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'studio_switch_scene' (switching) and 'studio_list_sources' (sources). The phrase 'from verified sync_settings state' adds context without confusing the core purpose.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over studio_get_status or how it relates to switching scenes. The usage context is entirely implied.

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

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 states what is listed (names, IDs, visibility) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the named scene does not exist, or how the active scene is determined. It also doesn't mention any potential errors or side effects, which is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, compact sentence that leads with the action ('List') and resource ('source names, IDs, and visibility'), followed by the context ('active or named scene'). Every word earns its place—there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the core function and default behavior. It falls slightly short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly state the return format (e.g., that it returns an array of source objects), though the listed items imply it. Given the low complexity, this is near-complete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'sceneName' with an explicit description of its optionality and default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the verb 'List' and the resource 'source names, IDs, and visibility' for a scene, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like studio_list_scenes (lists scenes) and studio_set_source_visibility (sets visibility). It also specifies the scope ('active or named scene'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when you need source metadata for a scene) by mentioning the optional sceneName and default to active scene, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't say 'use studio_set_source_visibility to change visibility' or 'use studio_list_scenes to enumerate scenes.' Usage is clear from context but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds value by noting the operation is idempotent and includes verification. However, it does not describe return values, error conditions, or side effects, leaving some gaps for a mutating operation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with one boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, idempotency, and verification. It could be more detailed about what 'verify' entails (e.g., return confirmation), but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description for 'muted' ('Desired mute state. The operation is idempotent.'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it does not exceed the baseline expected from high schema coverage.

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 tool's function: idempotently set and verify the mute state for the live studio audio output. It includes a specific verb (set/verify), resource (audio output mute), and scope (LIVE), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like studio_set_microphone_mute.

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 context ('LIVE Studio audio output mute') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks direct mentions of when not to use it or how it differs from sibling tools, though the resource name 'audio output' provides some differentiation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds behavioral nuance by stating the operation is idempotent and that it verifies the state, which is useful. However, the schema already notes idempotency, and the description omits details like permissions, side effects, or return behavior. The added value is marginal beyond 'verify' and 'aggregate'.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the description covers its core purpose. However, lacking annotations or an output schema means the description must explain the return or verification behavior more explicitly—'verify' is mentioned but not described, which is a clear gap.

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 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'muted' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond the schema, though 'aggregate' hints at broader scope without specifying parameter syntax or format.

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 verb 'set and verify' and the specific resource: the aggregate LIVE Studio microphone mute state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like studio_set_audio_mute, which likely targets a source's audio mute, by focusing on the microphone and 'aggregate' state.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The phrase 'aggregate LIVE Studio microphone mute state' implies it affects global microphone muting, but there is no clear context or sibling differentiation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the non-toggling deterministic behavior and the scene-restoration side effect, but it does not mention return values, error handling, or required permissions. This is moderately transparent but incomplete.

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 two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase contributes meaning. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the key side effect (scene restoration) and the schema handles parameter meanings, but without an output schema, it should explain what the tool returns or how verification is exposed. The lack of return-value/error detail leaves some ambiguity, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, though 'targeting another scene' indirectly refers to sceneName.

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 tool sets and verifies source visibility, with a specific resource (source) and action. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mute controls by focusing on visibility. The phrase 'without a blind toggle' adds specificity without ambiguity.

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 use when you need to set a source to a specific visible state, and mentions the scene-restoration side effect when targeting another scene. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses a precondition (confirm:true) and a safety condition, but does not explain what happens if the condition fails, what the side effects are, or what 'safe' means. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the critical constraints. Every word is necessary with no fluff or repetition.

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?

This is a potentially impactful mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter. The description is too sparse to fully inform the agent: it does not explain what 'safe' means, what the tool actually does beyond the name, or the consequences of starting live. More context is needed for safe and correct use.

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 provides a thorough description for the confirm parameter ('Must be exactly true to authorize the LIVE state change'). The tool description merely repeats this ('only with confirm:true'), adding no additional meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 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 clearly indicates the tool is for starting LIVE, with a specific precondition (confirm:true) and safety requirement. It distinguishes from the sibling tool studio_stop_live by the opposite action, though it does not explicitly restate the full purpose beyond the name and title.

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 that the tool should only be used when the readable state is safe and confirmation is provided, but it does not explicitly direct the agent to check studio_get_status or mention when not to use it (e.g., if already live). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It goes beyond the name by disclosing 'only when stopped' (a guard condition) and 'then verify recording state' (a post-action verification step). This provides useful transparency, though it omits potential failure modes or what happens if the precondition fails.

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 that efficiently communicates the action, precondition, and verification. Every word earns its place with 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?

For a zero-parameter, simple action tool, the description provides adequate context: what it does, when to use it, and a post-condition. It doesn't describe error handling or return values, but given the tool's simplicity and the strong sibling context, this is a minor gap.

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 and the schema is empty (100% coverage), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none to document.

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 verb 'Start' and the resource 'local recording', and the phrase 'only when stopped' adds a specific condition. It distinguishes from sibling tools like studio_stop_recording and studio_start_live by specifying 'local recording' and the precondition.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'only when stopped' is a clear when-not condition, implying the tool should not be called if recording is already active. It also distinguishes 'local recording' from live streaming, offering context for when to use this tool over studio_start_live, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the confirm requirement and the need to verify offline state, but does not address reversibility, permissions, or response format. It adds some value but remains incomplete.

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, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. Two sentences convey both the action and a required verification step with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, the required confirmation, and a post-condition verification. It is adequate for the complexity, though it could mention error handling or what happens if confirm is false.

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 schema already fully documents the confirm parameter (100% coverage) with a const true and description. The description's 'only with confirm:true' is redundant and adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 title 'Stop LIVE' and description 'Stop LIVE' clearly state the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like studio_start_live.

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 provides a critical usage condition ('only with confirm:true') and a post-action step ('verify the resulting offline state'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The guidance is useful but not fully explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the conditional behavior (only stops when active) and the post-action verification step, which is more than just repeating the tool name. However, it doesn't specify what happens if no recording is active (e.g., no-op or error), which is a minor gap.

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 sentence that fronts the main verb 'Stop' and packs all essential details—'local', 'only when active', and 'verify recording state'—without any wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

For a zero-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the action, condition, and post-verification. It hints at state checking but doesn't specify return values or error behavior when no recording is active. Given no output schema, this is a minor gap, but the tool is simple and the description is sufficient for most use cases.

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, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously, as the schema is empty). According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0 params; the description does not need to explain parameter details because there are none to explain.

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 ('Stop local recording') and the resource ('recording'), with a specific condition ('only when active') and a follow-up action ('then verify recording state'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'local', avoiding confusion with live streaming tools like studio_stop_live.

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 phrase 'only when active' implies a precondition for using the tool, effectively telling the agent when it is appropriate to call it. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the word 'local' contrasts with sibling tools like studio_stop_live, providing context. No exclusions are stated, but the condition is clear enough.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses two valuable traits: idempotency (safe to retry) and verification (checks the resulting active scene). These go beyond the tool's name and add insight into execution semantics. However, it does not mention error conditions or return values, which would enhance transparency further.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action ('switch') and adds the critical qualifiers (idempotently, exact scene, verify). Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and idempotency, but it leaves the return value and failure modes ambiguous. The phrase 'verify the resulting active scene' implies a check, but it does not explicitly state what the caller receives (e.g., the active scene name or a success indicator). This is a notable gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description ('Exact scene name returned by studio_list_scenes'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces the parameter's exactness by saying 'exact scene,' but adds no new syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline without enhancing it.

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 tool's purpose: to switch to an exact scene and verify the active scene afterward. It uses a specific verb ('switch') and resource ('scene'), and the phrase 'exact scene' distinguishes it from listing or other scene-related operations. This is unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings like studio_list_scenes.

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 the tool should be used when the agent wants to change to a specific scene, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. The idempotency hint is useful, but there is no direct guidance on how this differs from other studio actions, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'emit' without explaining that actions like live-pause or stop_live have immediate side effects on the streaming session. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., must be live) or whether the action is reversible.

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: one for purpose, one for usage boundary. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple trigger with a single enum parameter and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose and a usage constraint. However, it lacks explicit mention of real-world effects (e.g., pausing live will affect the broadcast), though the enum names imply this.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter with an enum and descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond hinting that non-parameterized actions are appropriate here.

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 title and description clearly state the tool emits a verified Stream Deck action. The phrase 'Emit one action from the verified LIVE Studio 1.33.2 Stream Deck protocol' specifies the verb and resource, and the sibling tools (status, scenes, sources, recording/live controls) make this distinct.

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 explicitly states 'Parameterized and stateful actions should use dedicated tools,' giving a when-not condition. However, it does not name specific alternative tools, so it falls just short of an explicit alternative list.

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