Read fixture positions in 3D

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it declares the read-only nature, explains axis convention (X stage left, Y upstage, Z up), the console's degree renormalization with a concrete example (0/180/0 reads 180/0/180), and the exact quaternion form. The remaining gap is scope defaults — it never says what is returned when neither fids nor fixtures is supplied.

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-loaded with the 'Read-only.' qualifier, then dense but every sentence supplies interpretation-critical detail (axes, renormalization, quaternion, units). The middle sentence is long and packs three ideas, but nothing is padding.

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 carry return-value meaning — it covers position, rotation, quaternion and mesh mirroring, which is the important part. It is still silent on the default/all-fixtures case and the response container, so a small but real gap remains for a zero-required-parameter read.

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 fids, fixtures and unit are already fully documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only reinforces that positions follow the requested unit while rotations stay in degrees; it adds no detail on the fids-vs-fixtures exclusivity or the 256-fixture cap beyond what the schema states.

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 specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('Position, rotation and mesh mirroring of fixtures in the 3D stage'), so the agent knows this is a 3D-geometry read. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as gma3_fixtures, gma3_fixture_attributes or gma3_place_fixtures, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Read-only' hints that this is the query counterpart to a positioning/mutation tool like gma3_place_fixtures, but no alternative is named and no condition for choosing this tool over gma3_fixtures is stated. An agent can guess it is used to inspect existing 3D placement, but must infer it.

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