Fl Param Scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only discovery operation ('Discover') and provides output context (offset, name, value, display) and how to address results. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify state, nor does it mention any permissions, side effects, or limitations. Some behavioral context is given, but not comprehensive.

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 concise, with a single sentence that conveys the main purpose and a parenthetical for the output fields, plus a sentence on addressing results. It front-loads the core function and includes useful usage detail without redundancy. It is well-structured for its length.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not shown, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters affect the scan, what values target accepts, or how slot/count/index/start are used. The output addressing is mentioned, but the operational details are missing. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (target, slot, count, index, start). It only hints at the target scope but does not define the meaning, format, or relationships of the parameters. Given the low coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 discovers named automatable parameters for channels, mixer tracks, effect slots, or global, and lists the output fields (offset, name, value, display). It is specific about the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fl_param, which likely performs a related function, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fl_param or other parameter-related tools. It only mentions how to address results later, not when to invoke this scan. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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