get_liveview

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get details' clearly signals a read-only retrieval operation, and the added guidance on host ID formats and sourcing liveview_id from list_liveviews provides useful behavioral context. It does not mention permissions, errors, or rate limits, but for a simple get operation 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by concise parameter guidance. Every sentence adds practical value, and there is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

For a two-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the necessary ground: purpose, host formats, required parameter, and where to get the liveview ID. It does not discuss edge cases or error behavior, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to make a correct call.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description fully documents both parameters beyond the bare string type. host is explained with acceptable formats including 'console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)', and liveview_id is marked REQUIRED with an explicit acquisition source. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptive content.

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 operation: 'Get details for a single Protect liveview by ID.' This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from listing and write operations such as list_liveviews or update_liveview, so an agent can select it correctly without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: after obtaining a liveview ID from list_liveviews. It also documents the valid host formats, which is practical invocation guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended usage path is unambiguous.

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