List executors

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the exact returned fields and the state machine for sequences (assigned.currentCue {no, name} while playing, assigned.lastCue after Off) plus a bridge version dependency. It does not state read-only-ness explicitly, pagination behavior, or cost/latency of polling live console state.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its returned fields, followed by the numbering reference an agent needs for the range parameters. The second sentence is heavily compressed and ends with a vague 'etc.', but nothing is truly redundant.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema read tool with no annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs: returned fields, playback-state semantics, and the numbering scheme for the range. Minor ambiguity remains between 'current executor page' scoping and the default 101-315 range, and no guidance is given on the volume or format of the result.

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 all three parameters document their defaults, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds real meaning for from/to by explaining the executor numbering layout (101-115 top row, 201-215 faders, 301-315 etc.), which helps an agent choose a sensible range, but only_assigned is not elaborated beyond the schema text.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List executors on the current executor page') and enumerates the returned fields (assigned object, key/fader functions, master fader level, playback state). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as gma3_executor_configuration, gma3_executor_settings or gma3_get_fader, so it stops short of a 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative, despite several sibling tools that also surface executor state. An agent must infer that this is the read/inspection path while gma3_executor_configuration and gma3_configure_executor are the mutation paths.

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