Inspect a fixture's DMX output

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: read-only guarantee ("never changes selection, programmer or playback"), the data source semantics (output levels, not programmer values), degradation behavior on ungranted universes with outputState explaining each, the 8-bit/16-bit/24-bit combining rule, and pagination. Very little about calling this tool correctly is left unstated.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the return shape, then limitations, then the alternative tool, which is the right order for a read tool. The single long paragraph with stacked parentheticals (bit-depth explanation, universes caveat) is dense and could be broken up, but nearly every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 result shape itself — and it does, field by field, including raw value scaling, derived percent, physical conversion labels, and the active channel set. Limitations, prerequisites, and the degraded-universe path are all covered, so nothing critical is missing for a tool of this complexity.

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. The description only restates `nonzero_only` as an explicit filter defaulting to false and mentions pagination generically — consistent with, but not additive to, the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opening clause names a specific verb and resource ("Current DMX output of one fixture or subfixture per RT channel") and enumerates the returned fields. It explicitly separates itself from gma3_dmx_output ("has the whole picture") and distinguishes DMX output levels from programmer values, so an agent can tell the siblings apart without opening a 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?

It gives clear context: works with gma3_lua disabled, requires plugin >= 0.3.0, and points to gma3_dmx_output when the whole universe picture is needed. It also states what is not available (per-attribute cooked output) and that ungranted universes return null plus a limitation. It stops short of an explicit "use this instead of X when Y" rule for every sibling, but the routing context is strong.

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