Measure how fast running sequences advance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it declares read-only behavior, the 1-8 sequence scope, sampling duration/interval bounds and defaults, that it starts nothing, and an explicit limitation ('phaser output is not observable over the bridge'). The one unstated trait is that sampling for `seconds` makes this a blocking/long-running call rather than an instant read.

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?

Front-loads the read-only guarantee and the core sampling behavior, and each subsequent clause (rate formula, chase prediction, phaser caveat) adds real information. It is dense and somewhat long, but there is no filler sentence.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still specifies what is reported (observed vs configured step interval, rate source, predicted step interval for Time-triggered chases) and its boundaries. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents all three parameters with meaning and bounds — `sequences` (1-8 running sequences), `seconds` (1-30, default 6), and `interval_ms` (default 40). This is exactly the value-add a schema-less param set needs.

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 and resource ('Samples the current cue of 1-8 running sequences') and gives the measurement's purpose in the title/description combo. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like gma3_get_object or gma3_sequences, which retrieve state rather than observing tempo over time.

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?

Includes an explicit precondition: 'It starts nothing: run the sequences first.' This rules out a common misuse. However, it does not name an alternative tool for measuring phaser/speed-master output or point to related tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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