Inspect a fixture's DMX output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does: it declares read-only semantics ("never changes selection, programmer or playback"), the dependency requirement (plugin >= 0.3.0, works with lua disabled), and concrete failure/limitation behavior (null value plus limitation on ungranted universes; no per-attribute cooked output).

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?

The payload is front-loaded into the first sentence (what is returned) before constraints and caveats, and most sentences carry information that is not in any structured field. It is dense and long, bordering on a run-on in the opening line, but not wasteful.

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 must explain return values — and it does in detail (channel name, attribute, universe.address, raw value with bits/unit, derived percent, linear conversion, active channel set). Combined with the limitations and read-only statement, an agent has everything needed to call 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 all four parameters are already documented, and the description mostly restates them (nonzero_only default false, pagination, fixture accepts subfixture references). It adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The title and opening sentence state a specific verb (inspect) and resource (a fixture's/subfixture's DMX output) and enumerate exactly what is returned per RT channel. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names a sibling (e.g. gma3_dmx or gma3_fixtures) to contrast against, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

It gives strong context cues: works with gma3_lua disabled, read-only, and explicit exclusion of programmer values ("Source is 'dmx output': these are output levels, NOT programmer values"). However it never states alternatives or when another tool should be used instead, so no explicit routing.

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