Live View

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses the 64-bar maximum and distinguishes the clip-specific mode, which is useful. However, it says nothing about whether this is a pure read operation, what 'runway' means operationally, or any other behavioral trait beyond the superficial view.

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 two efficient sentences that front-load the main behavior before the clip variant. There is no filler or repetition. The only minor cost is that it spends words on one parameter example while omitting more essential parameter context.

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 need not be explained, and the description adequately sketches the main return content (queue ahead and runway). But with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should do more: the required project parameter is unexplained, bars' default is absent, and the relationship to sibling live_* tools is not clarified.

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 for all three parameters. It partially explains bars (max 64) and clip (example 'c3'), but the required project parameter is completely undocumented, and bars' default of 8 is not mentioned. The compensation is incomplete for a required parameter.

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 specific verb-like view action: it shows the queue ahead, what each track plays per bar, and the runway, with a variant for a specific clip. It is more than a restatement of 'Live View' and gives a clear mental model. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like live_queue or live_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains what happens when clip='c3' is used, but it never states when to use live_view versus alternatives such as live_queue, live_status, or live_deck. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisite hints. This is minimal guidance buried in one parameter example.

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