Read fader values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation and it mentions returning display text, but it does not disclose permissions, side effects, or whether it alters playback state.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and return content efficiently.

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 simple read-only getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states what is read and that display text is returned. It leaves some gaps around return structure and permissions, but those are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents 'ref' and 'tokens'. The description adds only that the object is a playback object, which is already implied by the tool name and title.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('fader values and display text') and scopes the operation to a playback object. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling gma3_set_fader by being a read operation, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with alternatives.

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?

The description states what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say when to prefer this over gma3_get_object, gma3_playback, or gma3_set_fader.

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