get_look

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 discloses a useful performance trait ('much faster for large looks') and the default of includeFixtureValues, but says nothing about permissions, read-only guarantees, or what 'full details' actually encompasses.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by a compact parameter list and actionable guidance. The parameter bullets lightly duplicate the schema, but each sentence (including the performance note and the sibling pointer) earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and the key alternative. The only gap is that 'full details' is not spelled out, but that is minor given the tool's low complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining the default and the performance rationale for setting includeFixtureValues=false. This goes beyond the schema's terse 'Include fixture DMX channel values'.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a specific look) plus scope (full details), so an agent knows this is a single-record fetch rather than a list. It is clearly distinct from get_look_fixtures, though it never explicitly contrasts with list_looks.

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?

Gives an explicit condition for the includeFixtureValues flag (set false when you only need to know which fixtures are present) and names an alternative tool (get_look_fixtures) for fixture metadata. It lacks a when-not-to-use rule versus list_looks, but the routing guidance is strong.

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