Live Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it explains what a STALLED line means, that the safety chain reports gain reduction since the last status, and that problems arriving between calls are attached to the next live op reply. It omits any read-only/permission framing and rate-limit context.

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 content is dense and largely a single sprawling enumeration that is not front-loaded with a crisp summary, opening with the vague 'Where the live set is'. Every clause carries information, but structure and retrieval-friendliness suffer.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, yet the description richly characterizes the returned content and the inter-call error behavior. It is nearly complete, missing only operational framing (read-only nature, permissions) for a status tool.

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 must compensate. It clarifies the deck parameter (deck='B' switches to that deck's tracks and buses), but does nothing for the required project parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 makes clear this reports the state of the live set, enumerating exactly what is reported (decks, tracks, safety chain, runway, render health). It is specific about the resource and its facets, though it does not name itself against a sibling like live_view, leaving some overlap 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 only implied: the deck='B' note tells the agent how to drill into one deck's tracks and buses, and the closing sentence implies you need not poll separately for errors since they surface in the next live op's reply. There is no explicit when-to-use vs live_view or other alternatives.

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