Stage Status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what 'live' means (seconds since the page last posted its state), which is useful behavioral context, but never states this is a read-only inspection call, nor what happens when no stage servers are running.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the default all-servers view followed by the scene= variant. The parenthetical field list is compact, though the telegraphic phrasing slightly hurts readability.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema already present, the description is nearly sufficient: it frames the two modes of the call. The remaining gap is the absence of any routing guidance against a very crowded stage_* sibling set.

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%, and the only parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description compensates partially by explaining that scene= yields that page's state (VR/desktop, camera, heading, selection, captions). It does not say what format the scene value takes (name, id, path) or what happens with an unknown scene.

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 names the concrete resource: running stage servers, their scenes, and which pages are live. It also distinguishes the two output shapes (all pages vs. one page via scene=). It stops short of naming a sibling it differs from (e.g., stage_list, stage_presence, stage_scene_list), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 rather than stated: 'With scene=, that page's state' tells the agent the parameter switches to a per-page detail mode, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus stage_list, stage_presence, or stage_busy. No prerequisites (e.g., stage must be running) are mentioned.

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