live_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses cursor-advancement as default and offers non-consuming peek option. Does not specify side effects like data consumption or output format, but with output schema available, this is adequate.

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 sentences plus a short note. Front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage trigger, parameter behavior. No redundancy.

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?

Given sibling complexity and available output schema, description covers most needed context: when/why to call, how parameters affect behavior. Missing explanation of 'k' parameter but overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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%. Description explains advance_cursor parameter purpose ('peek without consuming') but does not mention 'k' parameter at all. Leaves agent to infer its meaning (likely number of results), which is insufficient for full compensation.

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 clearly states the tool shows actions from other concurrent Claude sessions, with a specific verb ('see') and resource ('OTHER concurrent Claude sessions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'brief' and 'broadcast' by focusing on cross-session visibility.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-call condition: 'when brief() shows live=N where N>0' or proactively when suspecting parallel work. Also explains default behavior (advances cursor) and alternative (peek without consuming via advance_cursor=False).

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