get_fx_envelope_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (list of points with time, value, shape, tension, selected), which is helpful since no output schema exists. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe any side effects, permissions, or error conditions. Behavioral transparency is partial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then return details. No wasted words. The structure is clear and efficient.

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 three required parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is insufficient to correctly invoke the tool. While it covers the output shape, it omits any explanation of the input indices, leaving an agent unable to determine what track_index, fx_index, and param_index should be.

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?

Three required integer parameters (track_index, fx_index, param_index) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what these indices represent, their valid ranges, or indexing base. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 'Get' and resource 'automation points from an FX parameter envelope'. Differentiates from siblings like get_fx_envelope (returns the envelope object) and add/delete/clear point tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar point-listing tools such as get_envelope_points or get_envelope_point_count.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_fx_envelope, get_envelope_points, or get_envelope_point_count. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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