live_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's added value is the disclosed return payload and the semantics of the `limits` object (audio_midi_tracks and scenes, null = no cap), which is real behavioral context. The gap is failure behavior: it says to "check that Live is reachable" but not what an unreachable result looks like, so the read carries a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return contract, then the imperative "Call this first" so the routing instruction is not buried. No filler and no repetition of the name or of what annotations already say.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it largely does: version, edition enumeration, supported features, and the limits caps. What is missing is the shape of the "supported features" value and the error/offline outcome, which matters for a connect-and-verify tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no argument semantics for the description to clarify. The sentence about `limits` concerns the response rather than inputs and is credited under behavioral transparency.

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 a specific action (check reachability) and enumerates the concrete return payload: Live version, edition ("Lite", "Standard", "Suite"), supported features, and edition limits. It is unmistakably distinct from every sibling, all of which mutate or create objects in Live, so an agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

"Call this first" gives explicit sequencing guidance that no sibling provides, which is exactly the precondition an agent needs before invoking the create/delete/set family. There is no statement of when not to call it or of any fallback path if the check fails, so it falls short of a 5.

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