Input capability and ownership status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well: it declares read-only semantics, that it functions while input is disabled, that it releases nothing, and it explains the backend distinction (keyboard = real keys, fake = nothing reaches the console). It also clarifies that ownership records are recovery responsibility, not physical key state. It does not cover auth or failure behavior, but the disclosure is unusually rich for a status tool.

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?

It is front-loaded with 'Read-only', which is good, but the payload is delivered as one very long run-on sentence enumerating roughly a dozen field groups, followed by a dense semantics sentence. Every item is arguably informative for a status tool with no output schema, but the structure is heavy and would benefit from breaking the enumeration into a shorter list.

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 describe the return payload, and it does so comprehensively: ownership record fields (owner, logical key, PC tuple, state, lease/deadline, dispatch outcomes, MASTATE readback, cleanup failures), interactions, sequence, capacity, and busy descriptor. For a read-only tool with zero parameters this is close to complete; only return format/ordering details are absent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax for the description to add or omit.

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 states a specific read operation ('Read-only') and enumerates exactly what the status covers: input enablement, backend, ownership records, interactions, sequence, capacity, busy descriptor. An agent can tell it is a diagnostic read rather than a mutation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like gma3_status or gma3_feedback, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Works while input is disabled; releases nothing' signals this is a safe diagnostic read and implicitly contrasts with gma3_hardkeys_release_all. However, it never says when to call this versus gma3_status, gma3_input_interaction, or gma3_feedback, so the routing guidance is left to inference.

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