List patched fixtures

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does solid work: it declares 'Read-only', discloses pagination caps (default 200, max 2000), and states a non-obvious truncation behavior (fixtures without a numeric FID are omitted when a range is given). It also version-gates one field ('bridge 0.28.0'). It does not cover error behavior or whether stages are aggregated vs. repeated per row, which keeps it from a 5.

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-loads the safety property ('Read-only') then the operation, then return shape, then filtering and pagination — a sensible order for an agent scanning for fitness. The long field enumeration is dense but each item is a distinct returned column compensating for the absent output schema, so it earns its space.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned field set, filtering semantics, pagination defaults and caps, and an edge-case (missing numeric FIDs). Remaining gaps are minor — how multi-stage results are ordered across stages and what the 'depth'/'DMX breaks' fields contain.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema itself and the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining the FID-range filter as a pair and adding the consequential caveat that non-numeric FIDs drop out of range queries — meaning the schema text alone would be incomplete for correct filtering.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Lists the show's fixtures from the live patch') and adds scope detail ('every stage, sub-fixtures included, in patch order') that separates it from a plain fixture list. It stops short of explicitly naming the nearby siblings (gma3_fixtures, gma3_patch_library, gma3_patch_types), so the differentiation is implied by 'live patch' rather than stated.

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 rather than prescribed: the reader can infer this is the tool for enumerating patched fixtures when a range filter or pagination is needed. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when…' routing, and no warning that gma3_patch_library is the type catalog rather than the patched fixture list.

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