bus_who

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers minimal behavioral detail. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires any prerequisites, or what the response format might be. The word 'live' hints at real-time status but does not disclose any side effects or limitations, leaving the agent without a full safety profile.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a zero-parameter command, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately identifies the output content ('live roles and MCP processes'). However, it lacks details about the exact response format (e.g., text vs. structured data) or whether it returns a snapshot, which could be helpful. Still, it is mostly complete for its 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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and no additional parameter information is required.

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 a clear action: 'Show live roles and MCP processes in the room.' It uses a specific verb ('show') and identifies a distinct resource ('live roles and MCP processes'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like bus_send or bus_export. The purpose is 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 this tool is used to inspect the current state of the room, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance such as 'use instead of bus_history' or 'for current status, not past events.' The usage context 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.