Resolve an object range

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 discloses the core transformation (range → list) and that property values are optional, but says nothing about pagination defaults, error behavior on unparseable ranges, or read-only nature, leaving meaningful behavioral 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?

Two sentences: purpose first, then a compact examples list. Front-loaded and waste-free, though the example list is long enough to verge on padding for an agent that only needs one representative sample.

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 4-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately covers purpose and the critical ref syntax. It is slightly thin on return shape details and pagination semantics, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 75% and the 'ref' description ('Command-line object range') is opaque on its own; the six syntax examples add genuine meaning by showing the exact range grammar the parameter accepts. It does not clarify limit/fields/offset beyond the schema, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 (resolve) and resource (command-line object range → list of objects), and the examples make the operation concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like gma3_get_object or gma3_list_children, so it stops short of 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?

The examples strongly imply when this tool applies (you have a range expression like 'Fixture 1 Thru 20'), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the many siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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