Read a show object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does add non-obvious behavior: property values come back 'as display text' rather than raw values, and children are opt-in. It also discloses the bridge version (0.36.0) and the exact TAGS return shape {tag, name, protect}. It omits error behavior for invalid refs and any cost/size caveats when reading large subtrees.

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?

One front-loaded paragraph that leads with what is returned and follows with use cases, with no filler sentences. The trailing TAGS parenthetical is dense but earns its place by explaining an otherwise surprising return shape.

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 7-parameter reader with no annotations and no output schema, the description does the important work of enumerating the returned fields and the shape of the TAGS payload. Remaining gaps are pagination semantics for child_limit/child_offset/child_fields and what happens on an unresolvable ref.

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 71%, so baseline is 3. The description maps the three boolean flags to their effects (properties as display text, optional schema, optional children listing), but says nothing about child_limit, child_offset or child_fields — and the schema itself leaves child_limit and child_offset undescribed, so that gap is unfilled on both sides.

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+resource ('Read an object from the show data') and enumerates the return payload (name, class, address, properties as display text, optional schema and children). It partially differentiates from siblings by naming gma3_tags for tag listings, but does not distinguish itself from near-overlapping readers like gma3_sequences, gma3_cues or gma3_list_children.

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?

'Use this to inspect sequences, cues, executors, fixtures, presets, groups, macros, pages, settings, etc.' gives a clear use context but no exclusions or routing rules. An agent still has to guess whether gma3_get_object or the domain-specific siblings (gma3_cues, gma3_sequences, gma3_list_children, gma3_dump) is the right call.

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