mixer_fx_slots

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses that empty slots return -1 and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explain error behavior for invalid track indices or whether the tool has any side effects, though none are expected for a simple list operation.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 13 words with zero waste. Every word is informative and no unnecessary details are included.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. Missing details about track indexing and return format (e.g., list of 10 integers) could lead to misuse. It meets the minimum viable standard but has clear 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?

The single required parameter 'track' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not clarify its semantics (e.g., 0-based or 1-based indexing, valid range). This is a critical gap that hampers correct invocation.

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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (plugin IDs in FX slots), and the scope (10 slots of a mixer track, with -1 for empty). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like mixer_track_info and plugin_list_mixer_track by specifying that it returns slot IDs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plugin_list_mixer_track or mixer_track_info. The description does not mention prerequisites, track index base, or typical use cases.

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