get_bus_schema_live

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Query' implies a read-only operation and 'running editor's BehaviorContext' adds useful runtime context, but the description does not mention failure behavior, whether the editor must be running, or how project_path affects the query.

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 sentence with no redundant words, and it front-loads the action and target. While it is sparse, it is structurally clean and easy to parse.

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?

The core intent is clear and an output schema exists to document return values, so result format does not need explanation. However, the description lacks usage guidance, sibling differentiation, failure context, and parameter semantics, leaving an agent with an incomplete picture for a tool that has a closely related sibling, get_bus_schema.

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 description does not mention any of the parameters: module, bus, or project_path. The param names are somewhat suggestive, but the description adds no meaning about their formats, required values, or relationships, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Query'), a resource ('the running editor's BehaviorContext'), and the result ('a bus schema'). It implies a distinction from the sibling get_bus_schema through the 'live' qualifier, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus get_bus_schema or other siblings. 'Running editor' suggests a runtime prerequisite, but the description does not state when this tool is preferred, what conditions are required, or when another tool should be used instead.

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