Read the recipe lines of a preset or cue part

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it declares read-only behavior, the default part value, a bridge version prerequisite ('Needs bridge 0.24.0'), and reports problem states (missing/empty group, missing preset, disabled) plus coverage caveats. It stops short of permission or rate-limit notes, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 key fact ('Read-only') and the target spec before the long return-value enumeration. It is dense and reads as one long sentence, but nearly every clause carries distinct information, so it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does: recipe lines, selections, values, MAtricks, filter, Enabled, cooking state, problems, and per-fixture coverage. That covers the nested-return complexity well, though some fields (e.g. MAtricks, SelectionMode shapes) remain undefined.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: the preset format ('N.M'), the mutually exclusive preset vs sequence/cue/part shapes, and the part default of 0. The schema only says 'Preset or cue part,' so this is real added value.

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 ('Read') and resource ('recipe lines of a preset or cue part'), and the target forms are spelled out explicitly. An agent can tell this is a read of recipe data rather than a cook (gma3_cook_recipes) or edit (gma3_edit_recipe) without opening the schema.

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 description gives the target forms and the default (part 0) but never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like gma3_cue_contents, gma3_edit_recipe, or gma3_cook_recipes. Usage is implied by the target specification rather than declared, and no exclusions are offered.

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