Live game status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the call waits for the bind to report, and a conflicting port surfaces as a listenError instead of a health signal. It also points at how to enable the bridge. It does not state what is returned when no game is running or the bridge is disabled, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the socket caveat following. The second sentence is dense and slightly convoluted ("a port another copy of this server already holds reads as a listenError here rather than as health"), and the closing "Also explains how to enable the bridge" is meta-commentary rather than tool information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload, and it does enumerate the reported fields (scene, map, position, switches, variables, party). Combined with the disclosed wait/listenError behavior and bridge-enabling pointer, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the no-game/disabled-bridge case is unaddressed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of `listening` refers to an output/status field, not an input, and it correctly does not invent parameter semantics that the empty schema does not support.

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 gives a specific verb ("Report") and resource ("what the running game last sent through the RMMZLiveBridge plugin") and enumerates the payload: scene, map, player position, switches, variables and party. This clearly separates it from action siblings like live_move or live_reload. It stops short of naming the closest alternatives (live_diagnostics, live_wait), so it does not fully differentiate by name.

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?

It clarifies what `listening` means and how a port already held by another server copy manifests (a listenError rather than health), which is real usage-relevant context. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus live_diagnostics or live_wait, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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