List a pool

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 states only that objects are listed. It never says the operation is read-only, nor does it explain pagination even though the schema exposes limit/offset, nor the shape or size of the result.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the trailing enumeration of roughly two dozen pool names is a dense wall of text that is hard to scan. Every item is arguably informative, yet the run-on single sentence costs readability.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the pool-name vocabulary an agent needs to invoke the tool, which is real value. It nonetheless omits pagination behavior and return-value expectations for a tool whose schema clearly supports paging.

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 only 25% — 'pool' is documented, while limit, fields, and offset are bare. The description's enumeration of valid pool names meaningfully reinforces the 'pool' parameter, but it adds nothing for the three undocumented pagination/projection parameters.

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 ('List') and resource ('the objects of a pool') and enumerates the pool names it accepts, which lets an agent recognize it against sibling list-style tools. It does not fully disambiguate from gma3_objects or gma3_list_children beyond the one preset-pool note, so it falls short of a clean 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 parenthetical gives a genuine routing rule: preset pools listed via this tool vs. a single pool via gma3_list_children ('Preset 4' style ref). However there is no general when-to-use guidance versus gma3_objects, gma3_get_object, or gma3_dump, and no prerequisites stated.

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