Status of the tempo-sync plugin

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 so: it declares read-only, defines exactly what 'running' means (State not 'not running' AND status written within 2 s of console time), and warns that saved values go stale after a show load. It also lists the returned fields, the last-action outcomes (ok / failed / uncertain), and the minimum bridge versions (0.31.0, 0.35.0 for the clock).

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-loaded with 'Read-only' and the core question, then built out with the running definition and return content; every clause is substantive. It is dense and slightly ungainly as a single run-on sentence with parentheticals, which costs a point, but little is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns and it does: field inventory, last-action outcomes, problems/errors, and configuration keys. It also covers failure modes (not imported, not running), remediation (how to start it), and version prerequisites, which is everything an agent needs to call and interpret this zero-parameter tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description cannot add or omit parameter meaning here.

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?

Names a specific resource (the tempo-sync plugin, identified precisely as bdstark/gma3-beat-sync) and a specific operation (report whether it is imported and running, plus what it publishes). The read-only framing plus the enumeration of published state, tempo, beat, phase, peers, drift, and config distinguishes it from the sibling configuration tool gma3_configure_tempo_sync and from gma3_observe_tempo.

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?

The context of use is implied clearly by the name and the 'read-only' framing, but there is no explicit 'use this when X, use gma3_configure_tempo_sync when Y' routing statement. The description does add useful operational guidance, such as what happens after a show load, but that is behavior rather than tool selection guidance.

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