Used and free pool numbers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses the complete:false/partial-read contract, that free blocks are only offered from complete reads, that older bridges (<0.47.0) return unconfirmed with free=null, that the call errors only when no pool is readable, and that unreadable executor assignments mark a page incomplete. These are exactly the failure modes an agent needs before relying on the output.

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?

Nearly all content is substantive and the purpose is front-loaded, but it is delivered as a single dense block of semicolon-chained clauses with nested parentheses, which makes the partial-read and free-block rules hard to extract on first read. No sentence is truly wasted, but the structure works against quick scanning.

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 tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, per-pool semantics, failure modes, version gating, and default search behavior. An agent has enough to decide whether and how to call it without consulting anything else.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains the shape of the response per parameter (used as compressed ranges '1-11, 5001-5534', with names as [no, name] pairs, with free as {size, from?} capped at 9999), clarifies that preset_pools is equivalent to 'Preset n' in pools, and describes Page's one-row free search (101-198, 201-298, ...). It does not explain data_pool's effect beyond the schema's default note.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read-only: which numbers a show already uses, per pool, before you store into it.' It enumerates the pools it covers (DataPool, presets, PresetPools, Page n, Pages) and explicitly distinguishes itself from gma3_objects and a Lua walk, so an agent can separate it from gma3_pool and 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?

States the operative moment ('before you store into it') and names the alternatives to avoid: gma3_objects 'Macro Thru' and a Lua pool walk. It also warns that 'Page 1.101 Thru 1.115' ranges are not accepted, which is a concrete when-not rule an agent could otherwise trip over.

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