get_live_score_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool is read-only ('Get information') and depends on an active connection. While not misleading, it lacks explicit statements about side effects, rate limits, or what happens if no connection exists (beyond the prerequisite). The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 only two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a crucial prerequisite. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only info retrieval) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values without need for description), the description is complete. It includes the essential prerequisite that an active connection is needed, which is critical context.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% by default. Per the guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no param info because none are needed.

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's purpose: 'Get information about the currently open score.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'information about the currently open score' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguished from sibling connect tools (e.g., connect_to_musescore) or other action tools (e.g., add_live_chord_symbol, set_live_tempo).

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 explicitly says 'Requires an active connection — use connect_to_musescore, connect_to_dorico, or connect_to_sibelius first.' This provides clear prerequisite context. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus other info-gathering siblings like get_measure_content or read_passage, which could have been helpful.

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