Resolve an object range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: it discloses a silent-failure mode (an older bridge returns nothing for cross-pool preset ranges) and a hard refusal case (a range across pools is rejected). It does not describe ordering, error shapes, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema states, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by examples that earn their place by defining the input grammar, then a single version-compatibility caveat. No sentence is redundant, and the most failure-prone information is stated last but clearly marked.

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 five-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics, the range grammar, and the two known failure conditions. The main remaining gap is return-shape detail — the agent must infer field naming and ordering, though the `compact` parameter description hints at addr/addrNative per object.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's bare "Command-line object range" for `ref` by demonstrating the actual grammar through examples, including the pool-qualified preset forms that are easy to get wrong. It adds nothing for `offset` and only indirectly touches `compact`, which is why this is not a 5.

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: resolve a command-line object range into a list of objects, optionally with property values. That is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like gma3_get_object or gma3_list_children, though it never names those siblings or states the difference explicitly.

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 implied through six concrete range examples ("Fixture 1 Thru 20", "Group Thru", "Preset 4.1 Thru 20"), which show the agent what kind of input belongs here. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus gma3_get_object, gma3_list_children, or gma3_pool, and no stated prerequisites beyond the bridge-version note.

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