List fixture types and DMX modes in the show

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does: it declares the operation read-only, enumerates the return payload, flags version-dependent behaviour ("bridge 0.28.0; null on older plugins"), and explains what a mode with cells means for patching. That is behavioral context beyond anything the bare schema provides.

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 read-only guarantee and the core listing action are front-loaded, and the routing sentences follow in a logical order. The parenthetical about cells and bridge versions is dense and slightly interrupts flow, but it conveys real information rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by describing the returned fields, the null/version caveat, and the downstream tools that consume the type and mode identifiers. Nothing essential for a correct call is left implicit.

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 100% and the single optional `search` parameter is already documented as a case-insensitive substring filter on name, short name or manufacturer. The description does not mention filtering at all, so it adds nothing over the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Lists the fixture types imported into the show with their DMX modes") and enumerates the returned fields. It explicitly separates itself from gma3_patch_type_structure (channel/cell/geometry detail) and gma3_patch_library (console library fixtures), so an agent can pick the right tool without opening schemas.

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 spelled out end to end: use the type and mode numbers/names with gma3_patch_add, use gma3_patch_type_structure for per-mode structure, and use gma3_patch_library plus gma3_patch_import for fixtures not yet in the show. The exclusion ("Only the show's own types are listed") tells the agent when this tool will return nothing useful.

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