List fixture types and DMX modes in the show

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden; it opens with 'Read-only' and discloses a real limitation (only the show's own types are listed; library import unsupported). It does not describe pagination or result size, but for a simple read that is a minor gap.

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' safety signal and then packs purpose, return fields, usage routing, and limitation into three tight sentences. The field enumeration is dense but earns its place by describing an otherwise undocumented return shape.

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, the description valuably enumerates the returned fields (number, name, manufacturer, short name, source, DMX footprint, breaks, channels per break) and notes the library-import limitation. Only minor gaps remain, such as result size or sorting behavior.

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 100% and the single 'search' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics about the filter beyond what the schema states.

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 ('lists the fixture types imported into the show') and enumerates the returned fields, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like gma3_patch_list and gma3_patch_add.

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?

Explicitly names the downstream consumer ('Use the type and mode numbers or names with gma3_patch_add'), which gives clear selection context. It does not state when to prefer this over gma3_patch_list, but the routing guidance is concrete.

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