lom_call

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the return value is a dictionary reporting execution status and that only allowlisted methods can be invoked, which is useful context. However, it does not mention potential side effects of calling methods, error behavior, or whether calls may mutate the Live session.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and organized into Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the essential invocation inputs and return shape, and an output schema exists so return details need not be fully restated. However, for a generic method-calling tool with no annotations and many siblings, it leaves gaps: the allowlist itself is not defined or linked, side-effect risks are unaddressed, and no guidance is given for choosing between lom_call and related batch/get/set tools.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: path is a dotted LOM path, method is an allowlisted method name, and args is an optional list of positionals. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles of 'Path', 'Method', and 'Args'.

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 invokes an allowlisted method on a Live object, which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like lom_get, lom_set, and lom_batch by focusing on method invocation, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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?

The description implies this tool should be used when a method on a LOM object needs to be called, rather than for reading or writing properties. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer lom_call over siblings like lom_get, lom_set, or lom_batch, and it does not define what qualifies as 'allowlisted'.

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