List sequences

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: it explains the currentCue vs lastCue semantics (current cue while playing, last cue after Off) and states a bridge version prerequisite (0.32.0) for the cue field. It stops short of saying it is strictly read-only or describing failure modes when the bridge is older.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the returned attributes, then the version caveat. The parenthetical about currentCue/lastCue is dense but earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return payload and a version dependency, but leaves pagination, error behavior, and the limit/offset/fields parameters unexplained. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 only 50%: limit and offset have no descriptions, and fields is terse. The description mentions the 'selected data pool' but does not clarify pagination behavior, defaults for limit, what happens to extra fields, or the interaction with data_pool, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all sequences in the selected data pool') and enumerates the salient returned attributes (cue count, active playback, current cue). It doesn't distinguish itself from close siblings like gma3_cues or gma3_configure_sequence, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 by the verb 'List' and the data-pool scoping; there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus gma3_cues or gma3_configure_sequence. An agent can infer it is a read/inspection call, but must guess at the boundaries.

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