Read a show object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behaviour: the returned content set (name, class, address, properties), that property values come back "as display text" (i.e. formatted strings, not typed values), and that schema/children are opt-in. It stops short of error handling for bad refs or pagination semantics for large child listings.

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 dense sentences: the return contents are front-loaded, the optional extras follow, and the usage sentence closes with concrete object-type examples. No filler and no repetition of the tool title.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, describing the return contents largely compensates for the absent output schema. The remaining gap is the child-* pagination parameters and any statement of read-only safety, which nothing else in the definition covers.

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 71%, so the schema already documents ref, schema, children, properties and child_fields. The description reinforces the schema/children/properties toggles and adds the "display text" nuance, but says nothing about child_limit, child_offset or child_fields, leaving the pagination behaviour of children listings undefined in both places.

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 gives a specific verb (Read) and resource (an object from the show data) and enumerates the returned fields: name, class, address, all properties, optional schema and children. It is clearly not the same as a mutator, but it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings such as gma3_objects, gma3_dump, gma3_list_children, gma3_sequences or gma3_cues, so an agent must guess which generic reader to pick.

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?

"Use this to inspect sequences, cues, executors, fixtures, presets, groups, macros, pages, settings, etc." gives a concrete context of use across object domains. However, it offers no when-not guidance and no routing to the alternatives that clearly overlap (gma3_list_children for children, gma3_fixtures for fixtures, gma3_pool for pools).

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