get_live_connection_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the parenthetical list gives some sense of the return data, but there is no mention of permissions, rate limits, whether the station must be actively streaming, or other traits an agent might need.

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 states the purpose and summarizes returned fields. The parenthetical list is slightly verbose but remains focused and earns its place.

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 read-only getter with no output schema, the description provides useful return-field context. However, it omits any usage guidance or behavioral details, and without annotations or an output schema, the agent lacks information about when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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?

There is a single parameter, station_id, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter itself, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get' and the resource 'live streaming connection information for a station', and it lists several returned fields (server, port, mountpoint, bitrate, samplerate, format). It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like get_server_status or get_station_state, which prevents a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description is purely a statement of what it returns, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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