eddn_live_sample

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that output is 'bounded' (not an endless stream), 'live' (real-time vs historical), and dependent on 'pyzmq + network', but it omits failure modes, rate limits, and what the bounding concretely means.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core purpose comes first, and the runtime dependency is placed parenthetically without disrupting the main clause.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with no annotations, 0% parameter description coverage, and no usage guidance, the definition leaves the agent unable to judge how to tune timeout_s or max_messages or when this live-sample tool is preferable to siblings.

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 timeout_s or max_messages. The word 'bounded' faintly relates to the limits but does not map to parameters or add semantic meaning beyond the schema titles and defaults, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 specifies the resource (EDDN relay messages) and scope (bounded sample, live), so an agent knows it obtains a limited set of real-time EDDN messages. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools, which are mostly static game-data queries.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not conditions. The parenthetical 'needs pyzmq + network' is a runtime prerequisite, not usage guidance.

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