get_look_fixtures

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses the return shape (fixture IDs, names, types) and a behavioral trait (it is the 'fastest way', light on data). It omits any auth/permission or error context, but for a simple read tool this is solid disclosure.

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-loads the key distinction in the first sentence, then lists returns and use cases. The use-case bullets partially restate the opening sentence, so there is minor redundancy, but overall it is well organized and short.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the composition-analysis purpose. For a one-param read tool this is nearly complete; it only lacks explicit linkage to the alternative tool.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents lookId fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for fully-covered params.

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 and resource ('Get ... fixtures used in a look') and immediately scopes it ('without their values', 'without loading full DMX channel data'). This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling get_look_fixture_values, which an agent can identify without opening either schema.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('Which fixtures does this look use?') and contrasts against loading full DMX channel data, which implicitly routes the agent to get_look_fixture_values. It does not name that sibling directly or state exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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