list_fx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the include_params=false performance tradeoff ('faster'), which is genuine behavioral context, but spends most of its text restating the return shape that the output schema already provides and says nothing about permissions or edge cases.

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-loads the action in the first clause, then details the return structure and the optimization flag. Two tight sentences with no filler, though the nested shape breakdown is somewhat verbose given an output schema exists.

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 read-only two-parameter list tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return shape, and the include_params tradeoff. Gaps (track_index meaning, routing against siblings) are minor for this complexity level.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains include_params ('skip parameter details, faster') and its effect, and track_index is inferable from 'on a track'. The non-obvious parameter is well covered; the obvious one is left implicit.

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 FX on a track with their parameters'), which is clearly distinct from sibling mutations like add_fx, remove_fx, and set_fx_param. It does not explicitly name those siblings to route the agent, but the purpose 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 implied (read FX state, presumably before adding/removing/editing FX) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to sibling tools. It does provide one practical routing hint via the include_params flag.

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