get_fx_envelope_points

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safe-read behavior, and the description adds the return shape (time, value, shape, tension, selected). However, it does not disclose behavior around empty envelopes, index conventions, or whether the envelope must exist. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and a concise return summary. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only getter, the description plus readOnlyHint covers the basic call and lists the return fields. However, with no output schema and no parameter explanations, an agent lacks details on index conventions and point field semantics, so the description is only minimally complete.

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%, and the description does not explain track_index, fx_index, or param_index, their units, or zero-based indexing. It only names the resource, so it fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all automation points from an FX parameter envelope'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_envelope_points that target track envelopes. The phrase 'FX parameter envelope' makes the tool's scope 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_envelope_points, get_fx_envelope, or add_fx_envelope_point. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name and sibling context.

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