Inspect an executor and its sequence's playback settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the operation is side-effect free, explains cross-data-pool behavior (sequence read by reported address; dataPool: other, ref: null), defines failure semantics (unreadable values become null and are listed in 'unreadable'), and warns that sequence settings are shared by every referencing executor. Missing only operational context such as whether the console must be connected or how large the references scan can be.

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 safety statement is front-loaded, but the body is a single sprawling sentence built from semicolon-separated clauses and a trailing parenthetical field list ending in an ellipsis. The elision ('...') leaves the enumeration open-ended and the density makes it hard to scan. It conveys a lot, but the structure works against comprehension.

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 describe the return payload, and it does so thoroughly: object assignment, function mappings, locks, sequence playback fields, ownership of protection settings, and referencing executors. Combined with explicit null/unreadable semantics, an agent has enough to interpret results correctly; only the 'references' parameter behavior is left unaddressed.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds some meaning, clarifying that the sequence is looked up via the address the executor reports and that settings apply to all referencing executors, but it never mentions the 'references' toggle that controls the pool-wide scan.

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 names a concrete resource (a specific page.executor address) and enumerates what is inspected: the assigned object, key/MA-key/fader/encoder functions, Fix and Lock, page lock, and for sequence executors the allowed function choices plus the sequence's playback settings. That is far more specific than the title alone. It stops short of naming the sibling write tools (gma3_configure_executor, gma3_executor_configuration, gma3_configure_sequence), so differentiation is implied only by 'Read-only'.

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?

'Read-only' and 'Sends no command and changes nothing' imply this is the inspection counterpart to the configure tools, which is real usage signal. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use versus gma3_executors, gma3_executor_configuration, or gma3_configure_sequence. Usage must be inferred from the read-only framing.

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