Read DMX universes, grants and Art-Net / sACN output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares itself read-only and, more usefully, explains the diagnostic states returned (idle, not granted with no output and unreadable values, granted but unsent, sent as which universes). It also discloses a version prerequisite ('Needs bridge 0.30.0'). It does not state what happens if the bridge is older, nor anything about size/limits of the response.

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 key constraint and the usage rule are front-loaded, but the middle is a single sprawling sentence dense with stacked parentheticals that is hard to parse at a glance. Since there is no output schema, enumerating return contents earns its place, but the packing is inefficient.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the necessary work of describing what comes back and how each universe is classified, plus the bridge version gate. It stops short of covering failure behavior when the prerequisite is unmet or the response is large.

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% and the single optional parameter is already documented as 'Universes to include besides the ones in use.' The phrase 'plus any asked for' in the description mirrors that schema text without adding format, range, or interaction details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description opens with 'Read-only' and names the specific resource: every universe in use, with patch, grant, ports, merge mode, and Art-Net/sACN entries. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from gma3_configure_dmx_output (the write-side sibling), and the field enumeration is dense enough to partly obscure the core purpose, but a verb+resource is clearly present.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule: 'Use it when gma3_fixture_output or gma3_dmx return no values,' naming two alternatives by name. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement and never mentions the configure counterpart, so it falls 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.