Fl Options

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

The description discloses that the tool can both read and set global options and 'reports' metronome/precount/loop-record. However, it does not explain behavior when no parameters are supplied, whether multiple settings can be combined, output format, or side effects. With no annotations, this leaves notable behavioral gaps.

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, compact sentence with no redundant or filler content. It efficiently packages the tool's purpose and key parameter domains.

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?

The tool is simple and the description lists all relevant options, but it does not specify no-argument behavior, read-versus-set semantics in practice, or return value details. These gaps matter because no parameters are required and the tool is dual-purpose.

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 schema has no per-property descriptions, but the description partially compensates by listing snap mode values, swing range, and naming the options. Still, mappings are not explicit: 'time_display_minutes' is not directly tied to 'time display', and 'toggle_snap' semantics remain ambiguous.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Read/set') and resource ('global options'), and enumerates the affected options. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on project state, transport, or channel-specific operations.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fl_status, fl_project_set, or fl_channel_set. The description explains what it does but does not state the conditions or scenarios where it should be preferred.

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