Read DMX output of a universe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: read-only guarantee (never changes selection, programmer or playback), the granted:false behavior for ungranted universes returning no values rather than zeros, the bounded nature of patched mapping with limitations when skipped, and the two-address representation of 16-bit attributes.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the what/range opens the description before edge behaviors. Nearly every sentence carries a distinct fact, though the density makes it slightly heavy for a read tool.

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 or annotations exist, so the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does: granted flag, limitations on ungranted/patched, unit conversion, and 16-bit address splitting. An agent has enough to call and interpret it 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: percent is 'as the console converts it', patched maps addresses through the RT channels and is bounded/stated in limitations when skipped, and nonzero_only is characterized as an explicit filter. These are genuine semantic additions on top of the schema text.

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+resource: raw DMX output for an explicit universe and channel range, with 1..512 channels and 1..1024 universes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting the source is 'dmx output' — output levels, NOT programmer values — routing the agent away from gma3_programmer and similar tools.

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 clear conditions: works with gma3_lua disabled, reads output levels not programmer values, and unqualified universes return no values. It establishes when this tool applies but never names a specific alternative sibling (e.g. gma3_fixture_output or gma3_programmer) as the contrasting choice.

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