reaper_list_track_fx

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds context about the 0-based index and the list contents, but does not contradict annotations. No mention of other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, so score is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first explains the tool's output, the second provides critical context about the 0-based index. No redundant or extraneous words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (context signal), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential details: what FX info is returned and how the index is used. The only minor gap is lack of mention of error handling or performance, but overall it's sufficiently complete for a read tool with robust annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters (track_index, response_format) fully described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage details for the parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 FX on a track') and specifies the exact data returned (index, name, preset, enabled state, param count). It distinguishes from siblings like reaper_list_fx_params and reaper_list_fx_presets by focusing on FX on a track rather than their parameters or presets.

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 notes that the FX index is 0-based and used by other FX tools, providing important context for subsequent operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., reaper_list_installed_fx for all available FX) or when not to use it.

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