rba_start_live_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects and lifecycle behavior. It mentions 'optionally run them once immediately' but doesn't explain what happens during live editing (e.g., execution on save), session termination, or potential side effects like code execution or network activity. This is insufficient for a tool that can run Lua code.

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 with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core function and an optional variant, achieving maximum conciseness without waste.

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 having 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides only one line of context. It does not mention return values, session management, error behavior, or how to stop the session. This is inadequate for a complex live-session tool, especially compared to the rich schema that needs explanation.

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 0%, leaving the description to explain parameters. It only implicitly covers 'files' and 'runOnce' ('optionally run them once immediately'). It fails to explain 'mode', 'target', 'timeoutMs', 'debounceMs', and 'syntaxCheck', which are critical for understanding behavior. The schema has enums and defaults, but the description does not compensate for the lack of semantic context.

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 a specific verb ('Watch') and resource ('multiple workspace Lua files as one live-editing session'), clearly distinguishing from single-file watchers like rba_watch_file. It also mentions an optional immediate execution behavior, which differentiates it from pure watch tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer this over sibling tools like rba_watch_file or rba_eval_lua_file. The only context is implicit from the word 'multiple'.

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