Read console feedback state

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 thoroughly: it changes no console state (selection, command line, programmer, playback, focus), reads items sequentially rather than as an atomic snapshot, flags lastCommand/maState as shared observations rather than request confirmation, distinguishes sequenceActive from executor button state, and warns Freeze is always unavailable. It also documents per-item fields (available, value, scope, source, observedAt, epoch) and that null means unavailable while false is a real observed value.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded with the readable items, but delivered as one long multi-clause paragraph with heavy parenthetical asides, which hurts scanability for an agent. Little is outright redundant, but the packing is dense enough that structure suffers.

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 5-parameter, enum-heavy tool with no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the shape of returned items and their semantics (available/value/scope/source/observedAt/epoch, null vs false). Combined with the acquisition and interaction caveats, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantic value: it clarifies that executor/fader/sequenceActive readers are parameterised and sourced from executors/sequences, that fader_tokens defaults to ['FaderMaster'], and that previewBar defaults to display 1. It also documents the meaning of the returned value semantics, which the schema cannot.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (read-only console feedback state) and enumerates the exact readable quantities (command-line text, last command, Blind/Highlight/Solo, Preview, shortcuts, MA state, page, executor/fader/sequence activity). An agent can tell this is a state-reader apart from write-oriented siblings like gma3_command or gma3_set_fader without opening the 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?

Gives real deployment context — works with gma3_lua disabled, with console input disabled, and while another client holds an input interaction, and it acquires nothing. However it never says when to prefer it over siblings such as gma3_status or gma3_hardkeys_status, and the no-argument default behavior ('every parameterless reader is read') is stated but not framed as guidance.

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