live_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description does add real behavioral context beyond the annotation: it reports reachability of live apps and flags unsaved changes. It says nothing about probe latency or what happens when no live app exists.

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?

A single dense sentence with the primary function (live apps reachable) front-loaded before the `doc` refinement. Slightly fragmentary wording ('Live apps ... and the documents they have open') but no filler sentences.

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, zero-required, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers both the app-level and document-level results, including the unsaved-changes signal. Missing only edge-case behavior such as empty results and whether reachability checks are slow or best-effort.

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 100%, including a clear `doc` description and an enum-note for `engine`, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of `doc` (which app has it open, full path, unsaved flag) explains the returned detail rather than adding new input semantics.

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 the resource specifically: enumerated live apps (Word, LibreOffice) that are reachable, plus the documents they hold open. It is clearly distinguishable in substance from mutation siblings like live_open/live_close/live_save, though it never names any of them to say how it differs from live_places or live_selection.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the many live_* siblings (live_places, live_selection, live_save). The only conditional guidance is implicit in how the optional `doc` argument narrows the result, which is parameter behavior rather than tool-selection guidance.

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