live12_lom_get

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does make the non-mutating nature clear via 'Reads'. It says nothing about what happens with an invalid path or unknown property (error vs. null), or that return types vary by property (number, string, object).

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?

A single sentence with zero padding, front-loading the verb and the resource. Nothing in it is redundant or wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by indicating the shape of the returned value and how paths are discovered. Instead it stops at 'Reads the value', leaving the agent without the two pieces of context this tool actually needs.

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 100% and both parameters carry dot-path and property-name examples ('live_set.tracks.0.mixer_device', 'tempo'), so the schema does the work. The description adds no syntax or path-construction detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb ('Reads') and a specific resource (a property on an object in the Ableton Live Object Model at a given path). The read verb implicitly separates it from live12_lom_set and live12_lom_call, but neither sibling is named, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the read verb, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives. Notably absent is the guidance an agent most needs: to use live12_lom_inspect (or lom_call for methods) when the path or property name is unknown.

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