grandMA3 manual lookup

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 fair job: it discloses the two data sources (versioned indexed corpus when GMA3_DOCS_URL is set, otherwise the installed manual), the general return shape, and the important safety fact that source examples are never executed. It stops short of covering no-match behavior or error conditions.

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?

Three sentences, each doing work: purpose first, then accepted input forms, then runtime/return behavior. Dense but readable, with no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, input forms, data source selection, return nature, and a safety guarantee. The main gap is 'max_chars' and what happens when no topic matches.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the required 'topic' parameter well by giving both keyword and topic-phrase examples, but it says nothing about 'max_chars' (presumably a truncation limit), leaving one of two parameters entirely undocumented.

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 combination ('Look up a topic in the grandMA3 user manual') and scopes it to the manual shipped with onPC. It is clearly distinguishable from the operational siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent knowledge tools like gma3_lua_api or gma3_command.

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: the examples of what to pass ('Go', 'Store', 'osc', 'cue timing') suggest consulting the manual for command syntax or terminology. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no routing away from gma3_lua_api or gma3_command, which an agent must infer.

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