get_live_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adequately states the tool is lightweight and lists returned data. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a read-only status tool, this is acceptable but leaves expectations implicit.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key outputs. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 the tool has one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could benefit from specifying the return type (e.g., JSON object) or field types, but the listed fields (broadcasting, title, etc.) provide sufficient context for an AI agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter 'channel' is described with both id and URL format). The description adds context that the tool is for Chzzk channels but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves 'lightweight live status' for a Chzzk channel and enumerates the specific fields returned (broadcasting, title, category, viewer counts, start time). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_live_detail (which likely provides more detail) and list_lives (which returns multiple channels).

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 is for lightweight status checks, but does not explicitly state when to choose it over get_live_detail or list_lives. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided.

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