Inspect stored cue content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: declares read-only behavior ('never changes selection, programmer or playback'), notes it works with gma3_lua disabled and requires plugin >= 0.3.0, and discloses concrete limitations (storedValues always null, trackedValues 'not_reconstructed', fixtures filter scope).

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 with the core purpose and then adds dense but useful detail; nearly every clause (supported mode, limitations, param scope) earns its place. The single long paragraph is slightly heavy to parse, keeping it from a 5, but it is not padded.

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 is responsible for return-value coverage, and it enumerates the returned property/part/recipe fields in detail. Combined with the mode and limitation disclosures, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 genuine meaning: expand_presets:true adds referenced preset data keyed by preset address (GetPresetData), and the fixtures filter is scoped to expanded preset data only. It clarifies cross-parameter interaction rather than restating the schema.

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 ('Read what a cue stores') plus scope ('without playing it back or loading it'), which cleanly distinguishes it from playback siblings like gma3_goto_cue and gma3_playback. The enumeration of returned fields (properties, per-part timing, recipes) leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case as inspection-without-playback and states 'Never sends Goto, Load or any playback command,' which routes the agent away from the playback tools. It doesn't name specific sibling alternatives, but the read-only inspection context and the supported-mode/not-available constraints give clear usage boundaries.

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