live_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits such as read-only status, whether it is a one-shot query or requires polling, and what the output represents. The description only says 'Performance-mode state' and 'per-block clip status', without disclosing side effects, freshness semantics, or blocking behavior. This is a meaningful gap for a status tool an agent may need to poll or interpret over time.

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 compact phrase with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name, and it front-loads the core concept of 'Performance-mode state'. The structure is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of needed clarity. For a simple two-parameter status tool, this length is reasonable, but the wording is too terse to be fully effective.

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, no annotations, and only two optional parameters, the description needed to explain the return shape and behavior to be self-sufficient. It fails to state what the tool returns for the whole performance mode versus a specific track, how 'blocks' changes the payload, or whether the result is a snapshot or live-following state. The description leaves essential operational context absent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining the two parameters. It vaguely connects 'track' to per-block clip status, but it does not explain what a null track means, what 'blocks' controls, or how the integer values map to actual state. The defaults (null and 16) are defined only in the schema, not in the description, leaving the agent to guess the semantics.

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 phrase 'Performance-mode state' identifies a domain (live/performance mode) and the mention of 'per-block clip status' points to a query-style tool, distinguishing it from siblings like transport_status or piano_roll_status. However, it is a noun fragment with no explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'get', and 'performance-mode state' is not clearly defined. The description gives only a rough idea rather than a precise, unambiguous statement of what the tool returns.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like transport_status, arrangement_play_time, or piano_roll_status. The clause 'with a track, per-block clip status for it' implies an optional track-scoped usage, but it never states when global status is appropriate, when to supply a track, or when another status tool should be chosen instead. No exclusions or comparison conditions are provided.

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