live_find_device

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it declares 'Side effects: none', states that results are fresh path-ids, and documents the empty-match edge case. It still omits what happens on an invalid track_index and any cost or caching behavior, so it is not complete.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose and then cleanly partitioned into side effects, example, and edge cases. Every sentence adds information and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 two-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free tool, the description covers return shape ('fresh path-ids'), side-effect profile, and the empty-result case. Remaining gaps — failure behavior for a bad track index and the relationship of track_index to the track list — are minor but real.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: 'case-insensitive name substring' effectively defines query, and the example call implies track_index is a zero-based track position, but the example orders arguments (track, query) opposite to the schema's declared order, which could mislead. Types and constraints remain undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (devices) with matching semantics (case-insensitive name substring) and the scope (within a track). It is clearly distinguishable from live_find_track and live_find_clip by the resource noun, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling get_device_list, which plausibly overlaps.

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 by the verb and reinforced by a concrete example call, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance against alternatives such as get_device_list or list_device_params. The agent must infer that this is the search-style device lookup while the others are enumerations.

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