List executors

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 mentions the returned fields but doesn't disclose whether it's read-only (implied by 'List', but not stated), whether it can error, or what happens when no page is active. The executor-numbering range is a useful scope hint but falls short of behavioral 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact numbering reference. Efficient, though the numbering block could arguably belong in the schema and slightly lengthens an otherwise tight listing.

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?

With 3 optional params, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials for a listing tool. However, absence of annotations means behavior (read-only nature, error cases, relationship to sibling listing tools) is unstated, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 schema already documents to/from/only_assigned with defaults. The description's executor-numbering map (101-115 top row, 201-215 faders, 301-315) adds context for what range values mean, which is genuinely useful beyond the schema's plain numeric min/max. Still, it doesn't explain the only_assigned parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb+resource ('List executors') and details the scope ('on the current executor page') plus the fields returned (assigned object, key/fader functions, master fader level). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it differs from, but the specificity of 'current executor page' distinguishes it from something like gma3_objects or gma3_list_children.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies it's for inspecting the executor page but doesn't tell an agent how it relates to gma3_objects, gma3_executor_settings, or other sibling listing tools. The executor-numbering context is useful but doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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