grandMA3 manual lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (page text, or a list of matching pages), which is real behavioral value, but says nothing about what max_chars does, whether results are truncated, or any index/caching constraints. Adequate for a low-risk read, with gaps.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then input format with inline examples, then return behavior. No filler, nothing buried.

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 read-only manual lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, input phrasing, and result format. The only real omission is the semantics of max_chars and any hint about result volume or pagination.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It compensates well for 'topic' by giving seven concrete keyword examples and three phrase examples, clarifying the expected granularity, but never explains the 'max_chars' parameter at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb (look up), resource (grandMA3 user manual shipped with onPC), and output form. It is unmistakably distinct from the dozens of operational siblings like gma3_command or gma3_objects, which act on the console rather than explain it.

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?

Tells the agent exactly what to pass (a command keyword such as 'Go'/'Store'/'Lua', or a topic phrase such as 'cue timing') and implies a fallback flow when it returns a list of matching pages to choose from. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool is named, but no sibling offers manual lookup either.

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