live12_lom_inspect

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 does convey that this is a read-only inspection returning type/properties/methods, which usefully implies no mutation, but it says nothing about behavior on invalid paths (error vs empty result), performance, or that it only reads reachable objects from the two roots.

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 well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the return contents trailing. No filler 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?

With one parameter, no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the call returns (type, properties, methods) and the valid root paths. It could be more complete by stating how the discovered paths feed the sibling lom_get/set/call tools and what happens on a bad path.

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 its description already supplies example paths including 'live_set' and 'live_app.view'. The tool description's mention of the 'live_set'/'live_app' roots largely duplicates that, adding no syntax or traversal meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('introspects') and precise resource (any object reachable in the Ableton Live Object Model from 'live_set' or 'live_app'), and names what it yields (type, readable properties, callable methods). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related siblings live12_lom_get / live12_lom_set / live12_lom_call, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 only implied: 'introspects' suggests a discovery step before get/set/call, but the description never says when to use this instead of live12_lom_get or live12_lom_call, nor does it state prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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